Interest in DVB Handovers
Please find below a note from Burak Simsek (Fraunhofer Institute) expressing interest in DVB handovers. I have asked him for more information in this regard and if they could participate in one of our meetings to have a discussion on this and gauge the group's interest.
Also please find below some comments on Draft D4.0, which I would like to address in our Montreal meeting if they are still applicable in draft D5.0.
Best Regards
-Vivek
-----Original Message-----
From: Burak Simsek [mailto:burak.simsek@fokus.fraunhofer.de]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 7:42 AM
To: Gupta, Vivek G
Subject: Re: 802.21 Draft
Dear Mr. Gupta,
First of all I would like to ask you if there is a possible interest
from the IEEE 802.21 task group in extending the standard so that it
also includes DVB handover integration. In case you are interested in
this issue, we (Fraunhofer Institute, Universität Braunschweig ,
Universität Stuttgart) have experts of DVB who might be willing to
extend the standard in this direction. There are already related works
of a number of institutes under the umbrella of the DAIDALOS project,
which is financed by the sixth framework program of the European Union.
I also would like to ask you if it is possible to send the new version
of the draft. For your information; we keep the draft as confidential
within our institute and do not forward it to any other party.
I do not know if you consider any comments about the drafts, but in case
you are interested, I have a few minor comments about version 4.0 of the
802.21 draft. If you are not interested please ignore the rest of the
email.
kind regards
Burak Simsek
Comments:
1.
Link Identifier: the definition is ambiguous. Until table 36, the
type of the link identifier is given as Link ID, which is integer.
In table 36, the type is given as only integer. Starting from
section 7.6.16.1.2, the type is given as identifier. After
7.6.19.2.2, it is given as network identifier. Section 8.4.1.14
describes link identifier as link type, mobile node mac addr, PoA
mac addr.
2.
MIH_Scan.response at page 224, in figure A-6, was not defined
before. Instead, MIH_Scan.confirm was defined.
3.
MIH_Switch.confirmation at page 225, in figure A-7 was not defined
before. Instead, MIH_Switch.confirm was defined.
4.
In section 7.6.17.1.2 (MIH_Configure_Link.request) the link
identifier was forgotten within the first table of this section.
5.
Again in section 7.6.17.1.2, it is told that if
MIH_Configure_Link.request is received, then
link_configure_thresholds is sent. However, not all configuration
parameters need a threshold configuration. For example the
parameter, "current_address" changes the address of the link which
obviously does not need defining a threshold. Threshold definition
could be true for LINK_QOS_PARAMETERS_LIST.
6.
It is mentioned in section 1.1 that ESS is within the scope of
IEEE 802.21. However it is not mentioned later on how this issue
is treated.
7.
Although a differentiation between MIH_NET_*** and MIH_MN_*** is
introduced, MIH_NET_*** still includes information related to MN.
An example to this is the section 7.6.19.1.1 and the following
chapters relevant to HO.
8.
Numbering of section 7.6.20.1.4 is somehow repeated.
9.
QBSS load element of IEEE 802.11e gives information about network
load within beacon frames. This could help handover if the same
information could be transmitted within a primitive such as
MIH_Scan.confirm.