RE: discovery vs. discovery
Wrt to "discovery" of .21 services or capabilities, there would be awareness of .21 over the current bearer, or awareness by scanning of other bearers.
Current bearer:
"First level awareness" could be a .21 event that a bearer is in range perhaps? (Use case is a cellular radio is the active bearer and we don't want to sweep for WLAN until it's optimal to do so.) This event might indicate second level essential handover information including the potential bearer's .21 capability.
Scanning:
Could "First level awareness" for a node (either a network node or mobile) happen pre-authentication/pre-association? Also, would it make sense as either part of a broadcast advert(e.g. beacon), or communicated as part of a probe/response?
Second level awareness might be discovery of the essential handover information.
In both cases, Third level might be additional or preferred handover information.
These could be logically separate but in implementation overlap.
A potential reason to partition into "essential" and "preferred" is because some MACs offer more complete handover related information than others.
Perhaps the 1) and 2) of the 3 tiers described below would be essential and 3) would be preferred.
BR,
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]On Behalf Of ext Cheng Hong
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 3:01 AM
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: discovery vs. discovery
Hi Mike,
Agree. The classification looks much clearer.
As for the class 2), the information delivery may require certain
interaction between the MT and the network. E.g. MT needs to provide the
network its original/current network identity, and then the network could
respond with the correct information.
Of course, for the 1) and 3), it would be good for .21 to spell out what
needs to be included in the information sent to the MT.
It would also be interesting to know about the other issues, e.g. if beacon
can hold that much information, and would it be too slow, etc. But this of
course should be studied in individual technology group, e.g. .11 WIEN or
WNG.
cheers
Cheng Hong
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Mike MORETON
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 5:15 PM
> To: 'Cheng Hong'; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802.21] discovery vs. discovery
>
>
> Cheng,
>
> I think there are three classes of information:
>
> (1) Network identity
> (2) Access point identity and static capabilities
> (3) Access point dynamic capabilities
>
> ("Network identity" can be a fairly complicated aspect in
> some models if roaming agreements are taken into account.)
>
> Of these, (1) and (3) are most suited for being advertised in
> beacons. (1) because it is such a crucial part of the
> decision whether to use a network, and (3) because it may
> dynamically change.
>
> In any single network, (2) is likely to be generally similar
> between access points, so optimisations for this case are reasonable.
>
> Equally, in a wired network, physical connection tends to
> imply that the network identity is usable, so you can
> optimise for that case. Also in wired networks, (3) tends to
> be less of an issue.
>
> Mike.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Cheng Hong
> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 9:27 AM
> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802.21] discovery vs. discovery
>
> Hi Reijo, Michael, and all,
>
> I think it would be good to first draw the line clearly
> between the network discovery and the information discovery.
>
> What sorts of information should be classified as the the
> network discovery? Is it just the discovery of the identity
> of the network, maybe also the network behind it (as in the
> WLAN interworking discussion)? How about the network
> capabilities? Would they be for the network discovery or the
> information discovery? For example, when talking about the
> QoS information, as defined in .11e, certain parts of the QoS
> information are also available in the beacon.
>
> Another possible way to separate them would be from L2 and
> L3. Network discovery only provides info regarding L2, and
> information discovery would be regarding L3 info. I remember
> a few delegates mentioned about this in the teleconf. But I
> am not sure this is the concensus for the group. And, this
> seems also regards to how we look at the 'neighbourhood information'.
>
> Regarding the 3GPP/2, it might be very difficult to ask them
> to change their L2 to accommodate the .21, especially
> currently they are not yet looking at seamless handover
> to/from .21 to their cellular network. But, I think for most
> of the functions we discussed here, they already have
> corresponding mechanisms available.
>
> As for the 3GPP standards mentioned by Reijo, the TS22.234,
> 23.234, 24.234, 33.234, (29.234 - may not be relevant)are
> WLAN interworking standards. Therefore, WLAN mechanisms would
> be reused (they won't define a new WLAN standard). Since
> these TS are still under development, official LS to 3GPP
> would be helpful. Also, it could be directed to .11 WIEN
> group for discussion, since the they are specifically working
> on WLAN to 3G interworking.
>
> cheers
>
> Cheng Hong
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Reijo
> > Salminen
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 3:21 PM
> > To: Michael.G.Williams@NOKIA.COM; STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: RE: discovery vs. discovery
> >
> >
> > Hello, .21
> >
> > Some comments,
> >
> > What is the 'network node' in 2), is it an AP, the mobile
> station or
> > something else? I mean that it is a bit difficult to follow
> what the
> > sentence "a mechanism definition or protocol specification for a
> > network node to locate .21 aware nodes which are producing
> > "neighborhood information" in .21 format" means exactly.
> >
> > The, regarding the offline comments about 3GPP/PP2
> willingness/ability
> > to modify their L2 - this is a question to be handled
> officially and
> > in a professional way in the liaison activity. As we have
> seen in the
> > 3GPP TS 23.234 the intention is to use SIM/USIM based
> authentication
> > and 3GPP AAA server for WLAN users in order to be able to interwork
> > with 3GPP system. In order to enable the seamless handover
> > between the above mentioned systems, it should be clarified
> > which of the existing 3GPP TS'es need to be updated, and if
> > there is needed new ones, the same is valid for 3GPP2. Also
> > what is needed is a realistic timeplan for the needed updates
> > to be done, and who are the contact persons for each TS.
> >
> > BR, Reijo
> >
> > PS. A good book to read about the 3GPP radio access is 'Holma &
> > Toskala: WCDMA for UMTS', maybe you Michael have a copy
> since they are
> > your colleagues from Nokia...
> >
> >
> > -----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: 21. kesäkuuta 2004 23:52
> > To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: discovery vs. discovery
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > In section 2, Functional Requirements, a suggestion was
> made to call
> > the two types of discovery under discussion:
> >
> > 1) Network Discovery
> > 2) Informational Discovery
> >
> > Here is a potential framework for the two.
> >
> > 1) Is the "traditional" network discovery concept/requirement. .21
> > would provide a media independent specification that
> defines optimal
> > ways to determine the existence of L2 networks. Most
> wireless networks
> > offer the beacon/probe type advertisement now. .21 might specify the
> > essential information that is required across all conformant
> > MACs within this function.
> >
> > 2) Informational Discovery would be a mechanism definition
> or protocol
> > specification for a network node to locate .21 aware nodes
> which are
> > producing "neighborhood information" in .21 format. Some MACs offer
> > such information now. We have discussed a variety of additional
> > information beyond that defined in any MAC, as potentially being
> > useful in optimized handover. .21 might specify a way of
> advertising
> > additional information in an extensible way that permits
> the "handover
> > state machine" to access it.
> >
> > It might be that the two services compliment each other, so
> for MACs
> > which don't have a beacon (e.g. .3) or can't/don't want to
> modify the
> > beacon, they could publish the 1) through a 2) service.
> >
> > Please comment!
> >
> > There are some strong comments offline that 3GPP/PP2 can not modify
> > their L2 to add functionality such as the above. Are there
> comments on
> > this too?
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Michael
> >
> >
>
>