RE: [802.21] Tomorrow's Telecon material
Hi Vivek,
>Well if you plan to use IS in such a case, you presumably already have
a
>L3 connection. I am not sure this necessarily translates to a time
sensitive type transport requirement (at L3) for IS.
Srini> The issue is simply that the IS queries can also be initiated
(over current link on L3) when the current link conditions are
degrading. How fast it is degrading depends on the link technology, the
user mobility and other factors. Quick transport of the queries are
highly desirable under those conditions.
>This seems to imply more of a time sensitive type requirement
>on events/commands type of messages as opposed to IS exchanges.
Srini> For such situations, ES/CS have to be time-sensitive to ensure
quick handover and so are also IS, since it provides critical input for
network selection. From an implementation perspective, not
implementations/algorthms need be proactive, it is possible that there
are no IS queries when the link conditions are good or intra-technology
coverage is available but this can change quite fast under certain
situations.
Regards,
Srini
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM]
>Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:53 PM
>To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [802.21] Tomorrow's Telecon material
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On
>Behalf Of
>> Michael.G.Williams@NOKIA.COM
>> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 10:27 AM
>> To: Srinivas.Sreemanthula@NOKIA.COM; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: RE: Tomorrow's Telecon material
>>
>> The sense that came from the NIST presentation by Nada Golmie at the
>> last meeting was that doing a full association (initial entry) into
>some
>> network types takes a long time. There is a complex relationship
>between
>> the speed of moving, the initial entry time for the
>handover, and the
>> amount of time in advance that the handover process begins. It seems
>> that if IS is used to facilitate initial entry into a
>network that has
>a
>> slow startup time, it will have to be quick...
>[Vivek G Gupta]
>Well if you plan to use IS in such a case, you presumably
>already have a
>L3 connection. I am not sure this necessarily translates to a
>time sensitive type transport requirement (at L3) for IS.
>
> And the faster the
>> mobility towards the slow startup network, the faster the services
>that
>> confirm the handover and facilitate it will have to be.
>[Vivek G Gupta]
>This seems to imply more of a time sensitive type requirement
>on events/commands type of messages as opposed to IS exchanges.
>
>>
>> In addition, we might need to look at characterizing the fixed and
>> variable portions of network entry startup time to help the
>MME in the
>> MN or the network compute this timing.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Michael
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ext Srinivas Sreemanthula
>[mailto:Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com]
>>
>> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 9:40 AM
>> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: Tomorrow's Telecon material
>>
>> Hi Vivek,
>> I agree that proactive info queries are necessary for timely
>decisions
>> which is certainly implementation dependent. But the nature of IS
>> queries may involve (may be only L3) proxies, multiple transport
>> connections and database queries. Putting a requirement for time
>> sensitivity seems like a good idea to me. As you say this feature can
>be
>> used/misused but I don't see downside in using it either. The
>intention
>> is to ensure that the transport design allows for quick queries.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Srini
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: ext Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@intel.com]
>> >Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:29 AM
>> >To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-NRC/Dallas);
>> >Qiaobing.Xie@MOTOROLA.COM; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> >Subject: RE: [802.21] Tomorrow's Telecon material
>> >
>> >>
>> >>The need for timely delivery is more context based than it is
>content
>> >based. >I mean the urgency is known to only to the
>requesting entity
>> >based on its >current conditions and therefore, setting a delay
>> >requirement for transport >does make sense to me.
>> >>
>> >
>> >It might help to understand this client context better, why/how did
>the
>>
>> >client get into such a state...before getting too far into the
>solution
>>
>> >space. For all you know the reason for this client state (context)
>> >could just be a not so good implementation as opposed to a more
>germane
>>
>> >design requirement.
>> >If clients don't get information in a proactive manner and plan for
>> >vertical handovers..., any amount of delay sensitivity built into
>> >transport may not be good enough to rescue the connection under
>adverse
>>
>> >situations. Also even if the use cases and requirements are quite
>> >relevant, just a delay sensitive transport may not be good
>enough to
>> >rescue such cases....
>> >
>> >That said, in general the transport should work well for
>most normal
>> >cases. If there is a delay sensitive option in transport that comes
>for
>>
>> >free I can easily see clients abusing it and using it as a default
>> >anyway....
>> >
>> >Best Regards
>> >-Vivek
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On
>> >Behalf Of
>> >> Srinivas.Sreemanthula@NOKIA.COM
>> >> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:46 PM
>> >> To: Qiaobing.Xie@MOTOROLA.COM; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> >> Subject: RE: [802.21] Tomorrow's Telecon material
>> >>
>> >> Qiaobing,
>> >> Inline ...
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Srini
>> >>
>> >> >-----Original Message-----
>> >> >From: ext Qiaobing Xie [mailto:Qiaobing.Xie@MOTOROLA.COM]
>> >> >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 3:51 PM
>> >> >To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> >> >Subject: Re: [802.21] Tomorrow's Telecon material
>> >> >
>> >> >Srini,
>> >> >
>> >> >Sorry for missing your earlier question. But if only some
>> >> >transactions are time sensitive, would setting a general delay
>> >> >requirement for transport (i.e., forcing every transaction
>> >to pay the
>> >> >same cost) become a little wasteful?
>> >>
>> >> Srini>Good point, not all IS queries need it. But for some
>instances
>> >> that need it, the transport must support it. I think the transport
>> >must
>> >> provide this capability and also ability to switch off the
>> >feature, if
>> >> there is no need.
>> >>
>> >> >Moreover, IP in general is best effort network and every
>> >transport is
>> >> >at the mercey of the underneath IP layer. I don't know any
>existing
>> >> >mechanism that allows the sender to control the timeliness of
>> >> >delivering a packet over an IP path (the most a sender can do is
>to
>> >> >set the TOS bits and pray).
>> >>
>> >> >The more common practice for a sender is to set a shorter
>> >timer if it
>> >> >knows that an out-going message is urgent so that it can engage
>> >> >failure handling sooner if the expected response does not come
>back
>> >> >from the far-end.
>> >> >
>> >> >By the way, the only time sensitive IP transport defined in IETF
>is
>> >> >RTP, while neither TCP or UDP is considered time sensitive.
>> >>
>> >> Srini> I am not sure how this requirement will be supported. One
>way
>> >> would be use datagram services that don't need session setup.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >regards,
>> >> >-Qiaobing
>> >> >
>> >> >Srinivas Sreemanthula wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi all,
>> >> >> I am answering to my own email. The need for timely delivery is
>> >more
>> >> >> context based than it is content based. I mean the urgency
>> >> >is known to
>> >> >> only to the requesting entity based on its current conditions
>and
>> >> >> therefore, setting a delay requirement for transport does make
>> >sense
>> >> >> to me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Regards,
>> >> >> Srini
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>-----Original Message-----
>> >> >>>From: ext Srinivas Sreemanthula
>> >> >>>[mailto:Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com]
>> >> >>>Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 8:18 AM
>> >> >>>To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> >> >>>Subject: Re: [802.21] Tomorrow's Telecon material
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Qiaobing,
>> >> >>>Without taking the discussion into classifying static
>or dynamic
>> >> >>>information... are there any time-sensitive information
>> >in our IE,
>> >> >>>now?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Regards,
>> >> >>>Srini
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>-----Original Message-----
>> >> >>>>From: ext Qiaobing Xie [mailto:Qiaobing.Xie@motorola.com]
>> >> >>>>Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:09 PM
>> >> >>>>To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-NRC/Dallas)
>> >> >>>>Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> >> >>>>Subject: Re: [802.21] Tomorrow's Telecon material
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>....
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>whether there is need for "timely delivery of IS" or not.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>The answer depends on what content the IS is carrying. If
>> >> >the content
>> >> >>>>is time sensitive, "yes", otherwise, "no".
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>regards,
>> >> >>>>-Qiaobing
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >
>