Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [Mipshop] Re: Architectural Considerations for Handover InformationServices (was: Re: CARD Discussion Query Discussion)



Qiaobing,

Could you elaborate on the "major portion"?  Do you mean the major portion 
is 5 to 9 sec, or the major portion is a part of 5 to 9 sec?

Also, which is more dominant delay factor in SIP/XML signaling,
transferring text over the air (transmission delay) or processing text
on cellular phones (processing delay)?

In terms of the sensitivity of IS, as long as IS can be executed
between handovers and in the middle of the call and in the background
without disrupting the call, the delay requirement of IS is not
necessarily much more sensitive than the call setup time, in my
opinion.

Yoshihiro Ohba


On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 09:42:08AM -0500, Qiaobing Xie wrote:
> Michael,
> 
> I know there are places where xml is involved in call control, e.g., an 
> optional xml document can be embedded in a SIP invite message in some 
> PoC VoIP call control messages in OMA. However, all 
> implementations/empirical data that I am aware of points to that as the 
> cause of a major portion of the call setup delay of PoC (~5-9 sec as 
> reported). It is widely recognized that is a penalty we all are paying 
> for the extensibility, flexibility, and text-based nature of SIP/XML 
> call control signaling and tremendous effort and resources have been 
> spent to reduce the VoIP call setup latency across the industry. 
> Fortunately, that only happens once at the setup of a call (I am not 
> aware of any significant SIP/XML signaling used mid-session).
> 
> In my view, handoff is much more time sensitive than the call setup from 
> a user's perspective and handoff can happen repeatedly in a call. Making 
> XML handling part of the handoff procedure may not be a good idea at all.
> 
> regards,
> -Qiaobing
> 
> Michael.G.Williams@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> > 
> >Colleagues,
> >
> >The folks from the IETF have been saying that the IS consuming more
> >bandwidth is not a problem, while the IEEE folks are saying bandwidth
> >and latency are key concerns. We need some meeting of the minds and
> >implementations/empirical data to help out here.
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >Michael
> > 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ext Qiaobing Xie [mailto:Qiaobing.Xie@MOTOROLA.COM]
> >Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 3:11 PM
> >To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> >Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Re: Architectural Considerations for Handover
> >InformationServices (was: Re: CARD Discussion Query Discussion)
> >
> >Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
> >...
> > > - In reality, 3GPP2 has XML-based method (e.g., XCAP) in its
> > > dependency list.
> >
> >If I remember it right XCAP/XML is used there for maintaining the
> >address book/buddy list that sort of things. I can imagine that sort of
> >events only happen at most no more than a few times a day for any given
> >user and probably only happen when the user is NOT in a call. In
> >contrast, IS query/response likely will be part of the h/o call flow...
> >
> >regards,
> >-Qiaobing
> >
> > >
> > > Yoshihiro Ohba
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshop@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
>