RE: [802.21] QoS resources (throughput) issue in Query and Commit HO phases

[David Cypher <david.cypher@nist.gov>]

Pedro,

One always has the vendor specific information, which can carry it.
What value can one use as throughput?
Is throughput at physical layer, MAC sublayer?  If the first one
already knows it by the network access type.
If MAC one knows some of that too, but with only CSMA (as an example),
throughput is relative (that is you take your chances).  
There is no reserving of throughput, which is apparently what you
want.

David Cypher
==========================
 At 02:21 PM 12/5/2008, Pedro Miguel Neves wrote:
> Dear David, All,
>  
> Many thanks for the clarification.
>  
> However, due to the removal of the ?throughput? parameter, it seems to me
> that there is an inconsistency.
>  
> The ?throughput? parameter has been removed from the QOS_LIST data type
> to avoid duplication with the ?throughput? parameter in the
> LINK_PARAM_TYPE data type. Consequently, in the messages where only the
> QOS_LIST data type exists, the ?throughput? parameter is absent. This is
> the case of the MIH_MN_HO_Candidate_Query message. In such a case,
> how should we transport the ?throughput? information?
>  
> Thanks in advance for your elucidation.
>  
> Best Regards,
> Pedro Neves
>  
> From: David Cypher
> [
> mailto:david.cypher@nist.gov] 
> Sent: segunda-feira, 24 de Novembro de 2008 16:00
> To: Pedro Miguel Neves; STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [802.21] QoS resources (throughput) issue in Query
> and Commit HO phases
>  
> Pedro Miguel Neves,
>
> Researching the missing pieces from Draft 7.0 to the current D14.
> The following comment (456) was received against draft 7 during the first
> sponsor ballot process.  
> This explains the removal of throughput from the QOS_LIST ( in order to
> satisfy a disapproved NO vote comment).
> Thus throughput did not exist in Draft 8.0 forward to D14.0.
>
> David Cypher
> ======================================== 
> At 06:09 AM 11/10/2008, Pedro Miguel Neves wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>  
> I am currently working on seamless mobility mechanisms & IEEE 802.21
> and I have a question related with the IEEE 802.21 query and commit
> phases of the handover.
>  
> In order to query the candidate access technology, the
> MIH_MN_HO_Candidate_Query message should carry the required QoS
> resources. Likewise, the MIH_MN_HO_Commit message should also
> carry the QoS resources to establish the reservations in the selected
> candidate access technology. Nevertheless, in version 14 of the draft,
> the QoSResourceRequirements parameter (QOS_LIST Data Type),
> present in both messages, does not indicate the throughput
> value parameter. Instead, is carries only jitter, delay and packet loss
> info, as follows: (as depicted in Table F.9 - page 241 of the draft
> v14):
> SEQUENCE(NUM_COS_TYPES, LIST(MIN_PK_TX_DELAY),
> LIST(AVG_PK_TX_DELAY), LIST(MAX_PK_TX_DELAY), LIST(PK_DELAY_JITTER),
> LIST(PK_LOSS_RATE) ) à Throughput is missing
>  
> Therefore, how is the throughput value parameter sent to the candidate
> access technologies? Is there any other parameter carrying this
> info?
>  
> Moreover, in previous versions of the draft, this information was
> included in the QOS_LIST data type (e.g. v07):
> SEQUENCE(NUM_QOS_TYPES, THROUGHPUT, PACKET_ERROR_RATE,
> LIST(COS_MIN_PACKET_TRANSFER_DELAY), LIST(COS_AVG_PACKET_TRANSFER_DELAY),
> LIST(COS_MAX_PACKETTRANSFER_DELAY), LIST(COS_PACKET_DELAY_JITTER),
> LIST(COS_PACKET_LOSS_RATE))
>  
> Can you please clarify this issue?
>  
> Thanks in advance for your help and kindness.
>  
> Best Regards,
> Pedro Neves
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG -
> http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1808 - Release Date:
> 11/23/2008 6:59 PM