RE: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)
> This is where semantic query provided by XML/RDF can be really useful.
> MN just needs to ask "Is operator A a roaming partner of operator B?"
> where A is access network operator advertised by the access network
> and B is the operator to which the MN is subscribed. And the expected
> response for the query is just "Yes" or "No".
This can be enabled in other forms (using TLV as well) and is not really
restricted to XML only. Given that some of the IEs are gonna be quite
large in size, this may be the preferred way of operating and we need to
specify such queries that give better performance.
Clients could still pull down all the information available at the
information server at their own discretion (for whatever reason) and be
aware of the cost implications. But having a more optimized query
mechanism (w.r.t payload over the air) should help in achieving better
performance.
Best Regards
-Vivek
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> Yoshihiro Ohba
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 6:33 PM
> To: Phillip Barber
> Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21]
SPAM-
> LOW: Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we expose in IEs?
(doc:
> 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)
>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 05:51:15PM -0500, Phillip Barber wrote:
> > I agree with your observations.
> >
> > I see 802.21's job as a facilitator to help namespace/numberspace
> > management reach a common understanding so interoperable, common
> behavior
> > can result. But 802.21 does not have adequate mandate or authority
to
> > enforce such action on other SDOs.
> >
> > But I have to say, 253 byte string fields are wholly unacceptable
for
> air
> > interface broadcast events in any timely manner that would be
useful.
> Bear
> > in mind that broadcast events are invariably transmitted at the
worst
> > possible burst profile. It is a burden if you have to transmit a
single
> 253
> > byte Operator ID code every minute or so. It is completely untenable
if
> you
> > have to transmit a list of twenty or a hundred of these every
second,
> which
> > can happen if the Access Network supports multiple CSNs, especially
with
> > the support of virtual CSNs. And lets not forget over-the-air
> transmission
> > of the CSN IDs for roaming partners. So the size of the Operator ID
that
> is
> > viable is tied to the quantity of Operator IDs to be transmitted
> > over-the-air and the frequency of broadcast of these values. Even as
> > unicast transmissions to individual MS, made with more robust burst
> > profiles, this could be pretty large blobs of data.
>
> This is where semantic query provided by XML/RDF can be really useful.
> MN just needs to ask "Is operator A a roaming partner of operator B?"
> where A is access network operator advertised by the access network
> and B is the operator to which the MN is subscribed. And the expected
> response for the query is just "Yes" or "No".
>
> Yoshihiro Ohba
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Phillip Barber
> > Chief Scientist
> > Broadband Wireless Solutions
> > Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Qiaobing Xie" <Qiaobing.Xie@motorola.com>
> > To: "Phillip Barber" <pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM>
> > Cc: <STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 5:40 PM
> > Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: Re:
> > [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we expose in IEs? (doc:
> > 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)
> >
> >
> > Phillip Barber wrote:
> >
> > >I disagree.
> > >
> > >The whole point of having a standardized media independent way of
> > >conducting handover was to make it so that each of the technologies
> could
> > >have a single model to write to, 802.21, instead of creating
different
> > >proprietary models of there own, each for different technologies.
What
> you
> > >propose then would be to have 3GPP2 write one method of identifying
> > >networks and negotiating handover among various technologies, 3GPP
> > >creating a different method, 802.16 creating another, 802.11
creating
> > >another, etc.... And it does not sound to me like any of them would
be
> > >interoperable.
> >
> > The focus here is just the Operator Name field, what should be put
there
> > and what the value should mean. I don't think any one is talking
about
> > abandoning 802.21. From the previous discussion on this thread, the
> > syntax and semantics of operator name clearly have a strong
connection
> > to the business model and agreement (who own which part of what). I
just
> > don't see how 802.21 by itself can impose anything there.
> >
> > >It sounds to me like you are endorsing having each industry segment
> create
> > >its own methodology which, once again, create multiple
non-standardized
> > >methods for conducting handover. Please correct me if I
misunderstand.
> >
> > We create the technology that allows everyone to associate with
everyone
> > else. But whether that will happen is beyond 802.21. In this
particular
> > case, a container will work - if the entire community can agree to
have
> > a single association, then they simply define and manage a universal
> > namespace and put the name in the container. If not, they define
> > separate namespace and put the name in the container. Either way,
the
> > 802.21 container will work just fine.
> >
> > >
> > >If all you wanted was some payload 'hooks' then none of 802.21 is
> really
> > >necessary. You could have just gone to each of the technology
specific
> > >standards bodies and asked for the hooks. 802.21 only exists to
create
> a
> > >common, standardized method to use those hooks. 802.21 is glue
> language;
> > >the common language that each of the other bodies writes to. So
802.21
> has
> > >to create the common interface for that action. That means mapping
and
> > >presenting information elements like network identifiers in some
common
> > >manner so that other technologies, other implementations will have
a
> > >common understanding and can create MS and network behavioral
models
> that
> > >can achieve similar and consistent handover results.
> >
> > I did not intend to generalize the discussion. Let's only talk about
the
> > operator name here. When an "operator name" IE is sent from A to B,
> > 802.21 takes the value from A and pass to B and makes sure that B
will
> > understand this blob of data is an "operator name" IE, but 802.21
will
> > not say anything about whether the value is right/wrong, good/bad,
> > legal/illegal, allowed/disallowed, etc. This because only the name
> > authority can judge the value of the name field. I don't see 802.21
can
> > or should play that role.
> >
> > regards,
> > -Qiaobing
> >
> > >
> > >Just my opinion.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Phillip Barber
> > >Chief Scientist
> > >Broadband Wireless Solutions
> > >Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
> > >
> > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Qiaobing Xie"
> > ><Qiaobing.Xie@motorola.com>
> > >To: "Phillip Barber" <pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM>
> > >Cc: <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 1:27 PM
> > >Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] Issue #6
Which
> > >operator should we expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment
> > >Assignments)
> > >
> > >
> > >Being a "Placeholder" means some secondary stds body (for example
an
> > >cellular and non-cellular network owner/operator association that
wants
> > >to build a cross-tech mega roaming/handover service network based
on
> > >802.21 technology) will have to step in after the completion of
802.21
> > >spec and define and manage their own operator/owner namespace.
> > >Interoperability would thus be guaranteed within that association.
> > >
> > >I don't see how 802.21 alone can accomplish network
interoperability
> > >without the involvement of the actual owners/operators anyway.
> > >
> > >regards,
> > >-Qiaobing
> > >
> > >Phillip Barber wrote:
> > >
> > >>You could do it, but I would not expect interoperability. That is
to
> say,
> > >>there would be no consistent presentation of information, so no
Mobile
> > >>Station behavior could be standardized because information is not
> > >>reliably/consistently provided. If you don't care about
> interoperability
> > >>you could simply create a generic payload delivery method and let
> vendors
> > >>stuff whatever proprietary info into those payloads that they care
to.
> > >>
> > >>Thanks,
> > >>Phillip Barber
> > >>Chief Scientist
> > >>Broadband Wireless Solutions
> > >>Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
> > >>
> > >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Qiaobing Xie"
> > >><Qiaobing.Xie@MOTOROLA.COM>
> > >>To: "Subir Das" <subir@RESEARCH.TELCORDIA.COM>
> > >>Cc: <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
> > >>Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 11:27 AM
> > >>Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we
> expose
> > >>in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Why not simply define it as a 802.21 placeholder/container
> > >>"Owner/Operator Info" IE containing an unrestricted character
string
> and
> > >>let the actual operators/owners/partners associations (like the
> current
> > >>GSMA) to decide whatever most suitable for their then business
model
> to
> > >>put in there.
> > >>
> > >>regards,
> > >>-Qiaobing
> > >>
> > >>Subir Das wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Phillip Barber wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>I would tend to agree. The mere identification that there is a
> roaming
> > >>>>agreement--that is to say the identification of a Visited CSN
(with
> > >>>>appropriate AAA) with a roaming agreement to a Mobile
Subscriber's
> Home
> > >>>>CSN--is available may very well be adequate.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>I would also agree. But why does MS need to know the Visited AAA?
> Corner
> > >>>case: where L1/L2 and L3/L4 operators are different in a visited
> network
> > >>>(assuming Home Network has roaming agreement with both of them),
> which
> > >>>operator's information should be exposed? Anyone or both of them?
> > >>>
> > >>>>As for identification of Visited CSNs that have a roaming
agreement
> > >>>>with a given Home CSN, the list may be presented over-the-air or
in
> a
> > >>>>configuration file in the MS, with periodic update. For some
> networks,
> > >>>>over-the-air does not present too much of a problem, when the
list
> is
> > >>>>small. For other networks, the list of roaming CSN IDs could be
huge
> > >>>>making over-the-air impractical, so configuration files that
receive
> > >>>>periodic update are used.
> > >>>>Thanks,
> > >>>>Phillip Barber
> > >>>>Chief Scientist
> > >>>>Broadband Wireless Solutions
> > >>>>Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
> > >>>>----- Original Message -----
> > >>>>
> > >>>> *From:* McCann, Stephen <mailto:stephen.mccann@ROKE.CO.UK>
> > >>>> *To:* Gupta, Vivek G <mailto:vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM> ;
Phillip
> > >>>> Barber <mailto:pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM> ;
> > >>>> ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM <mailto:ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM> ;
> > >>>> Junghoon Jee <mailto:jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR>
> > >>>> *Cc:* STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> > >>>> <mailto:STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
> > >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:53 AM
> > >>>> *Subject:* RE: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we
expose
> > >>>> in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dear all,
> > >>>> I would add a word of caution to this, as within IEEE
802.11u we
> > >>>> have assumed that in the future
> > >>>> there should be no reliance on the association between the
SSID
> > >>>> and the access service provider,
> > >>>> even though it is used in this fashion at the moment. The
SSID
> > >>>> should only be considered as a hint
> > >>>> and does not always indicate who or what you are connecting
to.
> > >>>> Currently there are contractual agreements between operators
> > >>>> (which can vary based on who they
> > >>>> are - there is no standardised format as far as I know.)
From an
> > >>>> 802.21 perspective, the roaming
> > >>>> agreement itself is not important to the mobile terminal.
It's
> the
> > >>>> fact that one exists that is important.
> > >>>> Hence I think that 802.21 should not worry too much about
how
> > >>>> roaming agreements are expressed.
> > >>>> Kind regards
> > >>>> Stephen
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>> *From:* stds-802-21@ieee.org
[mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org]
> *On
> > >>>> Behalf Of *Gupta, Vivek G
> > >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:11 PM
> > >>>> *To:* Phillip Barber; ajayrajkumar@lucent.com; Junghoon
Jee
> > >>>> *Cc:* STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> > >>>> *Subject:* RE: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should
we
> > >>>> expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment
Assignments)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Seems like we may need two operator identifiers to cover
the
> > >>>> general case.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> How are roaming agreements expressed? Are they relevant
to
> > >>>> only Core Service Providers or to Access Service
Providers
> as
> > >>>> well?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Is this information useful to a MS from a handover
decision
> > >>>> making perspective...and are operators generally
amenable to
> > >>>> making this available?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best Regards
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -Vivek
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> *From:* stds-802-21@ieee.org
[mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org]
> *On
> > >>>> Behalf Of *Phillip Barber
> > >>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 05, 2006 12:25 PM
> > >>>> *To:* ajayrajkumar@lucent.com; Junghoon Jee
> > >>>> *Cc:* STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> > >>>> *Subject:* Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should
we
> > >>>> expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment
Assignments)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I would say:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Access Service Provider - characterized by providing
> L1&L2
> > >>>> level access and may include some authentication
(device
> > >>>> authentication; L1&L2 and some L3&L4 capabilities
> > >>>> negotiation; L1&L2 authentication). Access Service
> Network
> > >>>> ID is usually analogous to Operator ID in 802.16 or
> > >>>> infrastructure based SSID in 802.11. It tells you
who
> you
> > >>>> are connecting to, but not necessarily who is
> > >>>> authenticating your use.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Core Service Provider- characterized by providing
L3&L4
> > >>>> level access and almost certainly includes AAA
> > >>>> authentication (perhaps device authentication;
certainly
> > >>>> user/account authentication; some L3&L4 capabilities
> > >>>> negotiation). Calling this 'Mobility Service
Provider'
> is
> > >>>> really a misnomer. Calling it the Mobility Service
> > >>>> Provider is a legacy distinction based on regulatory
and
> > >>>> marketing, not technical functional. On a technical
> level,
> > >>>> if PMIP, then yes, HA will be in the Core Service
> Network.
> > >>>> But the FA is in the Access Service Network and all
> actual
> > >>>> mobility activity occurs in the ASN, not the CSN.
And of
> > >>>> course the CSN may very well be a visited CSN,
perhaps
> > >>>> even likely. Only rationale for calling the CSN the
> > >>>> Mobility Service Provider is that the Mobile Station
> > >>>> acquires its IP address from the CSN, if PMIP. If no
> PMIP
> > >>>> (CMIP anyone?), it is even clearer. Anyway, mobility
> > >>>> occurs in the Access Service Network, not the Core
> Service
> > >>>> Network. Better to make the distinction based on who
> > >>>> validates capabilities and authenticates. All should
be
> > >>>> viewed from the perspective/perception of the Mobile
> > >>>> Station. CSN ID is more analogous to ITU E.212 MCC +
MNC.
> > >>>> MCC + MNC is not great, but it may be regulated
anyway.
> > >>>> May be required to be transmitted to meet regulatory
> > >>>> requirements. Definitely should stay away from using
NAI
> > >>>> over the air. NAI can be huge; very expensive over
the
> > >>>> air. And ASN ID and CSN ID could very well be the
same
> for
> > >>>> many networks, especially 802.11 and 802.16
> fixed/nomadic
> > >>>> networks.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> My two cents.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Phillip Barber
> > >>>> Chief Scientist
> > >>>> Broadband Wireless Solutions
> > >>>> Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>>>
> > >>>> *From:* Ajay Rajkumar
<mailto:ajayrajkumar@lucent.com>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> *To:* Junghoon Jee <mailto:jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> *Cc:* STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> > >>>> <mailto:STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 05, 2006 1:10 PM
> > >>>>
> > >>>> *Subject:* Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator
should
> we
> > >>>> expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment
> > >>>>Assignments)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Junghoon Jee wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In my view, "core network operator" loosely can be
> > >>>> interpreted as the
> > >>>> "mobility service provider", i.e., the operator that
> owns
> > >>>> the user.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Junghoon>> For clarification, the more accurate
> > >>>> interpretation about the feature of the mobility
service
> > >>>> provider is its having a mobility management entity
like
> > >>>> HA in case of MIP.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [Ajay] I guess you are treating the "core network
> > >>>> operator" as the "core transport operator", whereas,
I
> was
> > >>>> in fact treating "core operator" as the "home
operator"
> > >>>> including owning HA in case of MIP.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> However, if one has to look at the most general case
of
> > >>>> the entities
> > >>>> involved in providing a service to an end host they
> would
> > >>>> be as follows:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - Access Service Provider
> > >>>> - Mobility Service Provider
> > >>>> - "Services" Provider
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Junghoon>> Well, I am not so sure about the above
> > >>>> categorization.
> > >>>> I am more inclined to the definition from the IETF
draft
> > >>>> that was indicated from the previous message. :-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Each of the above typically has some level of
> > >>>> Authentication/Authorization functionality and
depending
> > >>>> on the the
> > >>>> network some of these AA functionalities may be
optional
> > >>>> at an implementation/deployment level.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Also, these Authentication/Authorization functions
could
> > >>>> be delegated to an independent entity. However, in
the
> > >>>> current networks typically this
> > >>>> is not delegated. Bottomline, the most general case
> could
> > >>>> involve six independent entities.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Considering that AA functionality may be integrated
by
> the
> > >>>> provider, three entities may still be involved.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Junghoon>> Back to the main issue of which operator
> > >>>> information we would expose in IEs...
> > >>>> I am not still questioning to myself about the
> feasibility
> > >>>> and effectiveness of exposing the _core_ operator's
> > >>>> information to IEs.
> > >>>> How can a MIH Information Server gather the core
> > >>>> operators' information depending on the varying
mobile
> > >>>> nodes and can pick up the right information for a
> specific
> > >>>> mobile node? Do we have to depend on the seed
> information
> > >>>> like NAI in case of AAA?
> > >>>> Moreover, what benefit can a mobile node expect by
> > >>>> receiving the core operator's information in terms
of
> > >>>> seamless handover?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Any thoughts?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best Regards,
> > >>>> -Junghoon
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >