Re: [STDS-802-21] Discussion about PoS versus MGW
I also agree with the PoS terminology
BR
Antonio
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Feder, Peretz (Peretz)
<peretz.feder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Agree with the PoS terminology.
>
> Peretz Feder
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yoshihiro.ohba@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:34 PM
> To: STDS-802-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-21] Discussion about PoS versus MGW
>
> I agree with using PoS to denote the MIHF handling the single-radio
> commands.
>
> Yoshihiro Ohba
>
>
>
> (2012/08/31 10:24), Charles E. Perkins wrote:
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> Yesterday we had a discussion about using PoS to denote the
>> MIHF handling the single-radio commands described in the
>> current 802.21c documents.
>>
>> The existing terminology ("MGW") was picked to emphasize
>> that the single-radio solution could be implemented without
>> having to implement the previously specified MIH PoS commands.
>>
>> I think it would be better to avoid multiple terminologies for
>> the same functional unit, which is always the PoS even if it is
>> also called the MGW.
>>
>> On the teleconference, we decided to raise this issue on the
>> 802.21 mailing list to get more discussion and perhaps consensus
>> from the group.
>>
>> Comments will be appreciated.
>>
--
Antonio de la Oliva
Visiting Professor
Telematics Department
Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
E-mail: aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx
Phone: +34 91 624 8803
Fax: +34 91 624 8749