RE: [802.21] Comments on Ref. Model
Hi Kalyan,
I noticed that in the introduction you referred to two contributions
21-05-0413....(let us call it ref (1)) and 21-05-0423..-(let us call it
ref (2)) where as I understand you based the document for discussion. I
would like us to consider also contribution
"21-05-0425-00-0000-InterDigital3GPPAmendments" as it is addressing the
same issue (let us call it reference (3) for the purpose of this
discussion). If we look at section 5.1.1 from ref(3), the proposed
reference model is fundamentally the same reference model that we agree
to use for our presentations to both 3GPP and 3GPP2. I find that this
model looks quite similar to the one you are proposing except for the
following:
1) Ref (1) shows the transport of MIH services between Lower Layer at
the network side and 802.21 MIH function as a local interface. However
there are other cases to consider. For example, in ref (3) we show this
scenario as the collocated case. However we also show that these
services can transported over higher layer transport or layer 2 as
well. Furthermore in ref (3) we stress that at the network side there is
no direct communication between 3GPP/3GPP2 lower layers and the MIH
function.
2) In ref (3) 3GPP and 3GPP2 communicates toward a MIH Network Entity
using higher layer transport. This is not described in ref (1)
3) Ref (1) shows communication from MIH function in the client station
to its peer at the Network through a higher layer transport. This is
consistent with ref (3). Then the interface goes through what it is
referred to as 'Higher Layer' before it communicates with the MIH peer.
This is very similar to ref (3) for case where the interface goes
through the MIH Network Entity (e.g., the Upper Layer being part of the
MIH Network Entity). However the scenario where just a L3 interface is
used to communicate between two MIH peers is not described. This is
depicted in ref (3) as double-headed arrow that goes from MIH to MIH
simply using a Higher Layer Transport.
4) You also indicate that the management plane has been replaced by what
it is referred to as L2 transport and that the Management Plane is
technology specific and therefore it is already covered in the
corresponding box. Here I have a comment and a question: If it is
already included in the box, why would we need to specify a L2
transport? Also from ref (1) the common layer 2 transport (or lower
layer) depicted in the figure indicates that both 3GPP/3GPP2 and 802
components used the same L2 transport, this is not accurate.
Furthermore, we have discussed two different mechanisms to send MIH
information both peer to peer and locally: 1) Over the management plane
(e.g.,through the introduction of a new an action frame format), and 2)
Over the Data Plane using LSAP (through the introduction of a new
ethertype). It is not obvious how the "Lower layer Transport" transport
handles these two mechanism, in particular considering that they
interface between the LLT and the MIH function is depicted as a local
interface. This might be accurate for locally generated events but not
for peer to peer remote events.
I have taken some of the concepts that you introduce and they are now
reflected in a newer version of fig.3 from ref (3). I added both
snippets from this e-mail and fig.3 from ref (3) to your document and
I'm sending it back attached to this e-mail. I enabled change tracking
within the document, although changes are quite obvious. Comments are
appreciated.
Regards,
Ulises
-----Original Message-----
From: Koora Kalyan Com Bocholt [mailto:kalyan.koora@SIEMENS.COM]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:32 AM
To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802.21] Comments on Ref. Model
Hello all,
after going through couple of presentations/comments, we had
some internal discussions on the reference model.
Please find our point-of-view in the attached document.
This can be discussed in detail later in the IEEE meetings
or on the reflector.
Awaiting your comments,
with regards,
Kalyan
General_MIH_ref_model_UO.doc