RE: [802.21] Ad-hoc Teleconferencec on Communication Model - October 18, 2005
> 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?
No, what I said was - per type of service (IS, ES or CS), UE should
contact only one MIH PoS within one network. However, it is possible
that an MIH service could be distributed between different MIH entities
and the network will ensure that the services provided by each MIH PoS
are not conflicting or overlapping with others for a single UE.
Please also check my response to Vivek to remove the restriction.
Regards,
Srini
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Subir Das [mailto:subir@research.telcordia.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:09 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
>
>
>
>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 .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>