RE: [802.21] 802.21 Information Elements
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yohba@tari.toshiba.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:32 AM
> To: Gupta, Vivek G
> Cc: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802.21] 802.21 Information Elements
>
> Vivek and all,
>
> I think this is a good document that well captures many discussion
> points made during the September meeting. I have several comments.
[Vivek G Gupta]
Thanx much for your comments Yoshi.
>
> General comments
> ----------------
>
> - It would be good if we have a new column that indicates whether an
IE
> belongs to basic set or extended set.
[Vivek G Gupta]
Wanted to focus more on the information, then on information
organization as part of this doc.
>
> - Are the 802.11 Applicability and 802.16 Applicability informational
> for better understanding or should the two columns be included in the
> draft text as well?
[Vivek G Gupta]
Only informational. Just to help us figure out if we need to add/amend
anything in the 802.11/.16 specification
>
> Specific comments
> -----------------
>
> - Number of point of Attachments (PoA) for a specific Access Network
> in the Neighborhood
>
> Since the table contains Address Information for each PoA, the number
> of PoAs is implicitly known. Do we need to define this IE?
[Vivek G Gupta]
The IEs are arranged in a Media Independent Neighbor Report type layout.
So as part of that you would get this information. In that respect this
is not really an IE.
>
> - Network Operator
>
> As someone pointed out in today's teleconf. on 802.16 amendment, the
> 802.16e network operator provided by BSID is valid within 802.16
> networks. As far as I remember, a rough agreement during the
> September meeting is that 802.21 Network Operator should use a global
> unique identifier across all network types (but there was no agreement
> which specific identifier is appropriate.) I personally think that
> operator's domain name might be the only acceptable global unique
> identifier used for representing network operator across all network
> types. Note that if an UE needs to obtain an 802.16e network operator
> information of a specific 802.16 BS from non-802.16 network, it can be
> obtained in the same way as PHY type and MAC type (media-specific
> information is already defined in media-specific MIBs and can be
> obtained via extended set access), so the 802.21 Network Operator does
> not necessarily carry 802.16e network operator information.
>
[Vivek G Gupta]
Yeah I agree. This was just an example for 802.16.
If we agree on a global unique identifier, is this identifier already
available for most operators or would it have to be constructed. Would
be nice to use something that's already being widely used.
Any other views on this....from operators/carriers?
> - Subnet Information
>
> As far as I remember the discussion during September meeting, it is
> hard to define for us to determine which specific higher-layer
> information is useful for 802.21. I think Subnet information (and
> higher layer service as suggested by Kalyan) can be better replaced
> with a general item such as "higher-layer information", and make it
> an extended set IE.
>
[Vivek G Gupta]
That's one thought.
But in any case it would be good to articulate and capture such
information before we make it optional. At this stage would like to get
all/most information folks think that could be used in handover. We
could always organize it appropriately.
> Best regards,
> Yoshihiro Ohba
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 04:49:45AM -0700, Gupta, Vivek G wrote:
> >
> >
> > When it comes to 802.21 Information Service, we have had quite a bit
of
> > discussion on different encoding schemes, access/query mechanisms,
L2 vs
> > L3, etc. However one aspect where we have had relatively less of a
> > discussion is the Information Elements themselves.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please find the attached document which lists the different IEs
> > currently under consideration in 802.21. The doc makes no attempt to
> > organize/encode these IEs in any particular way (schema etc.). The
> > intent is to just focus on INFORMATION itself ...
> >
> >
> >
> > Please send in your comments and any other suggested IEs that may
help
> > from handover perspective.
> >
> > We shall compile all received feedback and submit this as
> > updated/consolidated list of IEs for next meeting.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > -Vivek
> >
>