>The
second sentence tries to capture the idea of poviding aggregate abstraction to
upper layers.
Yes that should be the intent but it's not
reflected well in the sentence because the examples of services you are using
to describe that, are basically L2 services.
>[Bhatt
Yogesh-E42614] the example services try to are definitely L2
services but in heterogeneous network scenarios
"Link availability" is not simply the link up trigger from
layer 2, here it rather means much more because the
"availabilty" is to be quantified.
>For
example when any entity is interested in knowing all about new
links, their parameters for QoS, security and loading consdition etc....it
invokes the Link >availability service at L 2.5, which then collects/registers
various triggers/hints/MIB and respond to that entity.
>
This particular case is probably a bad
example.
Just because a L2.5 exists (which probably
includes handover policies etc.) higher layers may NOT want to know about all
the details you describe above, but may probably want to know a higher layer
abstraction of the same, some action like initiate handover to link X, etc.
>
[Bhatt Yogesh-E42614] you mis
interpreted it. The higher layer never know the details..its just
invokes the service and rest is done at L2.5 Its is this l2.5 that knows
what action needs to be taken for the invoked service by upper
layer.
>
Would rather describe as follows:
Layer 2.5 shall use the services provided by layer 2 such as
secured connection, guaranteed delivery.
Layer 2.5 shall provide services that provide a higher layer of
abstraction to upper layers.
These could include services to initiate change to a particular L2
link, etc......other more illustrative examples
[Bhatt Yogesh-E42614] here it
seems you are assuming handover function residing inside L2.5 but it
may not be that way because it all depends upon the specifc
implementation.
so i would propose to re-phrase it:
"Layer 2.5 shall
provide services that aggregate andabstract various layer 2
services enhanced with network information, triggers & hints in a
media independent fashion."
BR,
-Vivek
-----Original Message-----
From: Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@intel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004
9:10 AM
To: Bhatt Yogesh-E42614
Cc: Ajay Rajkumar; Michael G.
Williams
Subject: RE: [802.21] Unresolved
Comments
Suggested text:
"
Layer 2.5 shall use the services provided by layer 2 such as
secured connection, guaranteed delivery.
Layer 2.5 shall provide services to upper layers such as Link
availability, Link parameters in push and pull both modes
"
Yogesh,
I am NOT sure if you really intend the
second sentence above.
Services such as Link Availability and
link parameters are basically provided by layer 2.
If layer 2.5 extends these same services
to higher layers, then it's just acting as a passthru....
Regards
-Vivek
From: Bhatt
Yogesh-E42614 [mailto:yogeshbhatt@motorola.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004
8:59 AM
To: Gupta, Vivek G
Cc:
'STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG'
Subject: RE: [802.21] Unresolved
Comments
Editorial work has changed one of the
comments by me and Alan last meeting.
Comments from 7/14:
o Could add service to handle L2 based handoffs and
perhaps make them "invisible" to higher layers unless higher layers
express interest in the process/events
o Can get "wider" in time
Now it look like below in current version
7 of req draft.
The L2.5 can get "broader" in terms of functionality
and can provide many other services seamlessly to higher layers.
So the entire idea of putting a
subsection regarding -the service requested by L2.5 from layers below it
and services offered by L2.5 to the layers above -has been lost in editorial
work.
Re-working on these would capture the
comemnts in its true meaning.
Suggested text: (Alan please give your
input ASAP)
Layer 2.5 shall use the
services provided by layer 2 such as secured connection, guaranteed
delivery.
Layer 2.5 shall provide
services to upper layers such as Link availability, Link parameters in
push and pull both modes.
Vivek , I am unable to post to IEEE list
server today. Please forward it to Alan and List server. I appreciate your help
here.
Yogesh Bhatt
Global Standards-Personal Communications Sector
M
600 North U.S. Highway 45
Libertyville, IL 60048, USA
Phone: +1-847-523-0126,
Fax: +1-847-523-5660
Mobile:
+1-847-668-0334,
SMS: +18476680334@tmomail.com
Email: yogeshbhatt@motorola.com
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG]
On Behalf Of Gupta, Vivek G
Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004
11:50 AM
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: [802.21] Unresolved
Comments
Hello,
Please find list of all unresolved
comments (Ajay, Mani, Eric, Reijo) after today's teleconference.
If there are any other comments that I may
have missed or any others that need to be included in this list, please let me
know.
Best Regards
-Vivek