RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
Hi Daniel, Stephen and all HO guys
In my understanding, that kind of issue (e.g. ARID into beacon) is fit to be
discussed within 802.21.
The ARID formant, recommended usage examples and scenarios also could be
discussed and then
put into the documentation released as 802.21 spec. based on agreement
between 802.21 attendees.
However, the specific way to provide that ARID information over the air
interface should be discussed within each WG.
In fact, It sould be discussed within 802.11 WG to propose the changed
Beacon frame structure including ARID and
within 802.16 to propose the changed DL-MAP or NBR-ADV message including
ARID.
Let me know if I misunderstanding something from the Stephen's comments
Regards,
Sungjin Lee
=====================================
Global Standards & Research Team
Telecommunication R&D Center
SAMSUNG Electronics
TEL : +82 31 279 5248
MOBILE : +82 16 301 6603
E-mail : steve.lee@samsung.com
======================================
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of S. Daniel Park
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 8:38 AM
To: 'McCann, Stephen'; 'stds-802-21'
Cc: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM; 'S. Daniel Park'; 'Pyungsoo Kim'
Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
Stephen, thanks your kindly comments on this work.
I agree what you said, this solution can be applied for several wireless
environments and I really hope it will be expanded to related WG as you
stated 802.11 WIEN SG.
I am deeply considering what approach is more general as 802.21 guys
indicated and also waiting for various comments/feedbacks on this work.
> However, the way that this information is communicated, be that over a
> 802.11, 802.16, other air interface will be technology specific and
> should really be discussed within the WG in charge of standardising
> that technology.
Regarding this comment, could you explain it more detail ?
Thanks
- Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
- Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McCann, Stephen [mailto:stephen.mccann@roke.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 12:36 AM
> To: 'S. Daniel Park'; 'stds-802-21'
> Cc: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM
> Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
>
>
> Daniel,
> This is a very interesting issue, and I think it may be
> applicable to more than one WG.
>
> The information that you would want to make available at the APs (e.g.
> the ARID) is something that would seem to fit within the scope of
> 802.21, where the benefits of having a generic identifier that can be
> used over different technologies to support this L2/L3 handover
> distinction and what format this information should take can be
> discussed.
>
> However, the way that this information is communicated, be that over a
> 802.11, 802.16, other air interface will be technology specific and
> should really be discussed within the WG in charge of standardising
> that technology.
>
> Within 802.11 this issue would be welcome within 802.11 WIEN SG.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Stephen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: S. Daniel Park [mailto:soohong.park@SAMSUNG.COM]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 11:50 AM
> > To: ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM; 'stds-802-21'
> > Cc: 'S. Daniel Park'
> > Subject: RE: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - ARID
> >
> >
> > Hi all
> >
> >
> > At the previous meeting on March, I presented one issue which dealt
> > with unclear handover indication between L2 and L3 and this solution
> > defined a new ARID (Access Router ID) into the beacon to distinguish
> > L2 handover from L3 handover. If different ARID, it means subnet
> > change, then L3 handover is performed.
> >
> > The subject was as below:
> > Awareness of the handover to be distinguished from a L2 or L3.
> >
> > I remember that chair and some guys required more general solution
> > to solve this problem in the 802.11 and they worried about the newly
> > defined value into the current 802.11 beacon, however I am still
> > wondering how we can solve this ambiguous operation without 802.11
> > spec. extension like ARID or similar value.
> >
> > So I am open to listen some comments/views on this issue.
> >
> > My major question is that
> > [1] Do I have to propose this solution to the 802.11 WG since this
> > problem is originated from the 802.11 spec. ?
> >
> > or
> >
> > [2] Is this 802.21 WG is right place to deat with this issue ?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > - Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
> > - Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
>
> --
>
> Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk
>
> Registered Office: Roke Manor Research Ltd, Siemens House, Oldbury,
> Bracknell, Berkshire. RG12 8FZ
>
> The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is
> confidential to Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any
> third party without permission. This communication is for information
> only and shall not create or change any contractual relationship.
>
>