| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
I agree, the draft that I have does not
necessarily reflect the DT work-in-progress or assumptions. The DT is planning to provide inputs to
clean the PS, and there is a picture there showing some assumptions about the
transport. If you have any questions, I’d
suggest pointing them to the PS draft, which soon will be the baseline for the
DT proposed solution. Regards, Jc From: Srinivas
Sreemanthula [mailto:Srinivas.Sreemanthula@NOKIA.COM] Do you mean L3 as in IP? The undertanding
here is a transport based on IP (not necessarily IP or immediately above IP).
OTH, DT is not proposing any solutions. Juan has a solution based on UDP. Regards, Srini From: ext
Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:behcetsarikaya@YAHOO.COM] I discussed this with
Juan Carlos. The solution they are proposing is not even L3, it is L4. ----- Original Message
---- Alper, it really sounded like ES and CS @ L2 are
“the” solution so there is no need for ES and CS at L3,
that’s why I reacted. If we agree on the need for ES and CS @ L3, then I
am fine, and I would avoid further references to what is being done or not @
L2, since we’re here to work on the L3 solution. Whether the same
protocol needs to provide all three service or not is another question, and I
would not discuss its merit at this point (that’s more of DT decision
than a chair suggestion). Stefano From: Alper Yegin
[mailto:alper.yegin@yegin.org] Stefano, I’m not denying the need for a L3 ES
and CS transport. I’m saying L2 ES and CS transport is
also one of the accepted scenarios. Are we not on the same page? Alper From: Stefano Faccin
[mailto:smfaccin@marvell.com] Indeed. However, I need to add something.
Alper, can you help me understand in which forum or framework or circle it is
an accepted scenario that ES and CS are taken care at L2? That may be true for
some (few) access technologies, but cannot be generalized, therefore there is
the need for a L3 solution. As a matter of fact, there is plenty of discussion
going on on why it is useful to have it @ L3 for many technologies, in
particular to have a technology independent solution for multi-mode terminals
and networks. If we want to talk about L2 solution, there are technologies
(e.g. 802.11) that have solutions @ L2. Stefano From: Telemaco
Melia [mailto:telemaco.melia@netlab.nec.de] Hi Alper, _______________________________________________ |