Re: [802.21] Ad-hoc Teleconferencec on Communication Model - October 18, 2005
Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com wrote:
> Subir> Why do we want to restrict this? Our position should be we
>don't care if two IS providers
> want to be in the at same place and provide the same
>info. This will possibly depend upon
> their business model, pricing etc. It is upto the UE
>and the network operator to choose
> the right one and most likely it will be governed by
>the policy .
>Subir,
>I agree with you that you can have multiple IS servers, there are
>abosuletely no restrictions. You stated it youself, 'choose the right
>one' for the UE to use, either by UE or the network. The key is 'one',
>for the type of service, which could be whole or partial. If this is
>restritive, we all should understand the usage scenarios which cannot
>happen due to this.
>
SD> I may have missed something. Are you saying that per type of
service, UE should contact
only one IS provider at a given time?
>
>Regards,
>Srini
>
>
>________________________________
>
> From: ext Subir Das [mailto:subir@research.telcordia.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:48 AM
> To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-NRC/Dallas)
> Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802.21] Ad-hoc Teleconferencec on Communication
>Model - October 18, 2005
>
>
> Srini,
> One small comment.
>
> Thanks,
> -Subir
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com
> [mailto:Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 6:45 AM
> To: Gupta, Vivek G;
>STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Cc: stefano.faccin@nokia.com
> Subject: RE: [802.21] Ad-hoc
>Teleconferencec on
>
>
> Communication Model -
>
>
> October 18, 2005
>
>
>
>
>
> If a UE is connected to a single L2 link
>can we have a MIH
>
>
> PoS in PoA
>
>
> and possibly another L3 MIH PoS
>somewhere else in the network?
> If a UE is connected to multiple L2
>links how is a MIH PoS at
> L3 associated with a network w.r.t above
>restriction?
>
>
> My thought was that the UE may not
>receive CS from multiple MIH
>
>
> entities
>
>
> and UE cannot decide on the info
>authenticity if there were multiple
> sources of IS. I agree with you that
>there is a possibiliy
>
>
> that these
>
>
> MIH services can be shared between L3
>and L2 MIH entities.
>
>
> But it must
>
>
> be in a way that they are not
>conflicting in the offered services. I
> think we should capture this. I was
>thinking about stating
>
>
> generically
>
>
> that multiple MIH PoS can provide
>partial MIH services (IS,
>
>
> ES and CS)
>
>
> but the provided (partial) services in
>such a way they are not
> conflicting with other services offered
>by other MIH PoS. How does
>
>
> this
>
>
> sound?
>
>
> [Vivek G Gupta]
> ...not very convincing.
> It should be left to UE and MIH enabled network
>entities (MIH
> PoS) to discover each other, decide and
>negotiate an
> association. Given that there can well be
>multiple instances
> of such associations and it would be up to the
>UE to select
> and sign up for appropriate services for each
>association and
> also possibly deal with multiple instances of
>such
> associations and individual services.
> Maybe this needs to be better explained in doc.
>I don't have
> any good practical scenarios though.
>
>
>
> Srini)) I need to understand you better. My question is
>- why would a UE
> have two IS providers (MIH PoS) in the same network
>providing same
> information? Why would the UE receive the same CS from
>two different
> MIH PoS? If so, which one is authentic?
>
> Subir> Why do we want to restrict this? Our position
>should be we don't care if two IS providers
> want to be in the at same place and provide
>the same info. This will possibly depend upon
> their business model, pricing etc. It is upto
>the UE and the network operator to choose
> the right one and most likely it will be
>governed by the policy .
>
>
>
>
>