RE: [802.21] triggers vs. O/S
That's how I'm writing my current contribution. The top edge is abstract
802 style primitives.
DJ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mani,
Mahalingam (Mahalingam)
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 11:19 AM
To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802.21] triggers vs. O/S
If we assume dedicated L2 devices we need to identify transport and
protocol (a) for external apps. (read higher layers) to register
interest in trigger events (b) percolate trigger events up as alerts
back to the those external apps.
In specific cases where the layers are co-resident on a single device
such an interface may be inconsequential.
-mani
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-
> 21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Michael.G.Williams@NOKIA.COM
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 9:46 AM
> To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: [802.21] triggers vs. O/S
>
> Vladimir,
>
> There has been presented a notion of triggers delivered locally up the
stack from
> L1/L2 detection on the mobile or the network attachment point. There
has also
> been the notion of transmitted triggers which are sent from the MN or
(existing or
> potential) attachment points, to each other.
>
> The later will arrive in the L1/L2 of the device and presumably be
delivered in the
> same fashion as the former.
>
> The delivery fashion will most likely be quite different on Symbian or
Linux or
> Solaris or Java than on CE or XP or NT. That delivery might be signal
oriented or
> method oriented or an ABI within the OS network stack for example.
>
> Do you feel that we can /cannot define anything in the standard about
the locally
> determined triggers?
>
> Best Regards,
> Michael Williams
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of ext Vladimir
> Yanover
> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 8:59 AM
> To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: contributions for upcoming May 2004 meeting - L2.5 C
> oncrete Model ?
>
>
> Peretz, Mike
>
> I absolutely agree that the standards must not be based on product of
> specific vendor. Unfortunately, viability of this specific applicaton
> scenario does
depend on
> special features
> provided [or not] by OS vendors. Probably, there are more scenarios on
the
> table?
>
> Vladimir
>
[...]