AW: [802.21] AW: [802.21] TR: FW: [802.21] Comments on Ref. Model

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Koora Kalyan Com Bocholt
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. November 2005 10:01
An: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Betreff: [802.21] AW: [802.21] TR: FW: [802.21] Comments on Ref. Model

Hi Mathieu,

please find my inline comments.

To have much more generalised representation, I have altered the previous figure (see the attachment).

Regards,

Kalyan

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: NJEDJOU Eric RD-RESA-REN [mailto:eric.njedjou@FRANCETELECOM.COM]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. November 2005 01:57
An: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Betreff: [802.21] TR: FW: [802.21] Comments on Ref. Model

On behalf of Mathieu Péresse

-----------

Hi all,

sorry about not having taken part of the discussion earlier...

Our General Ref Model (ref (1)) aims to be comprehensive and simple, maybe at the expense of accuracy...

[Kalyan] It is true that if we keep it as simple as possible, we can't add accuracy to it. That is the reason why

I started with your model :-)

As Andrea says, this model can be refined and adapted to show the real internals of one (or more) specific technologies.

-> Answers from Kalyan's comments:

compared to orignial figure, the management plane is substituted with "Media Independent L2 Transport". Management plane is technology specific and is already covered by the respective boxes

[MP] The reason why we put a "Management box" in the lower layers "metabox", was because each technology has its own management plane, and
it was too dificult to make it appear on the figure. So the layout means, the MIH can interact with the data plane of each available technologies AND
with the management plane of each technologies... There may be a better way to represent that.

[Kalyan] Let me try to explain why we changed it a bit. If you refer to our modified model, you can see that MIH is having interaction with 2 higher layer

and 2 lower layer components. One higher layer and one lower layer component are local entities of MIHF at UE. The other higher layer and other lower

layer entities are used for communicating with MIHF at the other end (in network for example) using transport mechanisms.

This division may help us to say that all the local interactions could be carried over SAPs and all the transport events could be carried out over other

mechanisms (eg. socket communication for IP).

[MP] I think the Lower Layer transport and Higher Layer Transport boxes are not needed this the concept of "service transport" is carried in the black arrows (L3 transport) and in the grey arrows (L2 transport).

[Kalyan] The point is that the connection between the MIHF and the transport was not clear, will it be carried out by the technology specific or

is it an independent one. Therefore we tried to bring it to the front.

The direction of ES, CS, IS locally between MIHF and L2-Transport box is bidirectional. It is because, just like higher layer, this transport is used to carry the information between the peers. Since the L2-Transport box is situated in the terminal, it is local communication between MIHF and itself

[MP] We wanted to show that Events and Commands could be bidirectionnal, that means Commands could also control higher layers and Events could be sent from an higher layer to the MIH. This is going to be discusses in the comment resolution.

-> Answers from Ulises' comments:

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.

[MP] OK, but that justs add complexity in the picture.

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.

[MP] That's a valid point. Maybe we should clearly isolate the 3GPP/2 world from the 802 world in the figure.

2) In ref (3) 3GPP and 3GPP2 communicates toward a MIH Network Entity
using higher layer transport. This is not described in ref (1)

[MP] In our diagram, the MIH Network Entity is located in the Upper Layer box on the Network Side.
But we didn't made any assumption on the kind of software entity that was running there.

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.

[MP] Yes this is described, but indirectly: you go from the MIH on the Terminal side, use the "local interactions"
white arrows to interact with higher layers (for example a Media Independent Measurement Report you want to send using layer 3),
then this message is transported using L3 (the black arrows) and passed to the network side upper layers, who pass it to the MIH entity using the "local interactions" (white arrows).

Regards,

Mathieu

On 11/14/05, Olvera-Hernandez, Ulises <Ulises.Olvera-Hernandez@interdigital.com> wrote:
f.y.i
Ulises

-----Original Message-----
From: Olvera-Hernandez, Ulises
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 3:38 PM
To: 'Koora Kalyan Com Bocholt'; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: 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

--
a+

thieum.