RE: Interface of MIH with Upper layers
Also, there are relevant examples like this.
Object IDs in 802.11 and ethernet related NDIS driver APIs in some OS (
I guess I am not good with being vague.) directly use a subset of 802.11
primitives and MIB variable "definitions", though SNMP is obviously not
used in NDIS driver/OS interfaces.
I believe this even helped developing linux drivers.
Not a perfect example, but supports the argument that a well-defined
interface can help developing things that are hidden.
Byoung-Jo "J" Kim
macsbug@research.att.com
AT&T Labs - Research
http://www.research.att.com/areas/wireless/
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@ieee.org] On
Behalf Of Johnston, Dj
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 2:51 PM
To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: Interface of MIH with Upper layers
On these grounds, I would support a normative defintion.
Even if the SAP is buried in a mobile device I'm making, I might well be
sourcing things like protocol stack independently. A normative defintion
would lead to a higher liklihood of software component interoperability.
My other reason for preferring a normative defintion is slightly
philisophical.. What is the point of an informative SAP defintion? The
main point of a SAP is both to define a specific service and sometimes
to define the specifics of what information goes over the SAP for
interop purposes. If it's informative it looses both those qualities.
DJ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
[mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Cheng Hong
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 11:16 AM
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802.21] Interface of MIH with Upper layers
Hi Vivek and all,
I think the answer to your question on the SAP depends on whether you
see the implemenators of the MIH and uppper layer the same people. If
they are always the same, maybe a normative definition of the SAP is not
necessary.
However, if there are cases where the MIH and uppper layer (customer of
MIH) are implemented by different people, it probably needs to be well
defined to guarantee interoperability.
cheers
Cheng
> -----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: Thursday, January 20, 2005 2:08 AM
> To: stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Interface of MIH with Upper layers
>
>
> Hello 802.21 Folks,
>
> Another issue which seems to be emerging is the definition of
> MIH_L3_SAP or MIH_User_SAP, etc. as some have referred to in their
> proposals. The question is should this SAP be defined in normative
> sense within 802.21?
>
> This SAP allows higher layer (typically L3) entities to interface with
> MIH. This layer to layer communication in a local stack typically
> depends on specific OS, driver models in that OS and other
> requirements. So what would be the goal and benefits of defining this
> interface (SAP) in normative sense? Who would be the consumers of this
> and how can we drive/enforce this in normative sense?
>
> Folks have mentioned interoperability and other benefits around this.
> But it would be good to get a clear understanding around this as well.
> I am not sure if OS abstraction is the goal around some of this(?)
>
> Comments/Thoughts?
>
> BR,
> -Vivek
>
>