Re: [802.21] Question today about upper layers
[Gupta, Vivek G]
It just cannot be standardized that way. If it is not standardized that
way no possibility is precluded and you are free to do your own custom
implementation any way you want.
PF: Are you saying it can't be standardized because it can't be tested? and
therefore nothing is precluded?
[Gupta, Vivek G]
With only the base primitives of triggers and information service
PF: and these are testable/conformable and therefore can be standardized more
precisely?
On 3/21/2005 7:55 AM, Gupta, Vivek G wrote:
> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: owner-stds-802-21@listserv.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-802-
> |21@listserv.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Peretz Feder
> |Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 10:17 PM
> |To: Iyer, Prakash
> |Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> |Subject: Re: [802.21] Question today about upper layers
> |
> |On 3/15/2005 9:57 AM, Iyer, Prakash wrote:
> |> We might want some flexibility here. Having a lower layer
> autonomously
> |> switch links w/o considerations for cost ($$), whether it makes sense
> to
> |> single-home or multi-home, account for user preferences etc. does not
> |> seem appropriate - and certainly not in all situations. Having MIH
> |> generate triggers that facilitate handovers is one thing; specifying
> how
> |> MIH can use policies to switch links at this layer is avoidable in
> |> 802.21.
> |Not sure what is issue.
>
> |
> |Why can't the MIH layer get as one of its inputs
> |the policy attributes? Why is it (policy attribute)
> |only reserved for an upper layer?
> |
> [Gupta, Vivek G]
> It just cannot be standardized that way. If it is not standardized that
> way no possibility is precluded and you are free to do your own custom
> implementation any way you want.
>
>
> |
> |That said, with the base primitives, none of the implementation
> |> scenarios that people are thinking about will be precluded.
> |
> |Please elaborate, are you referring to upper layer implementation only
> |
> [Gupta, Vivek G]
> With only the base primitives of triggers and information service from
> MIH all implementations (including one you specify) are possible since
> MIH does NOT mention anything about policies etc.
>
>
>
> |>
> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> From: owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> |> [mailto:owner-stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Peretz
> Feder
> |> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 2:48 PM
> |> To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> |> Subject: Re: [802.21] Question today about upper layers
> |>
> |> Greg:
> |>
> |> I am of the opinion thet MIH commands lower layers to switch a link
> and
> |> in
> |> conjunction inform upper layers to take care of the IP signaling over
> |> the new
> |> selected link.
> |>
> |> Example switch 3gpp2 to .11 interface and make the MIP signaling at
> |> layer 3
> |> perform MIP re-registartion with the new COA and old MIP address. So
> I
> |> am with you.
> |>
> |> The counter argument will be what if moblity is done at the
> Application
> |> layer?
> |> i.e. SIP mobility?
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |> Peretz Feder
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |> On 3/14/2005 5:12 PM, Greg Daley wrote:
> |>
> |>>Hi,
> |>>
> |>>Here's my question from today about
> |>>upper layer protocols.
> |>>
> |>>Have you considered if specifying direct
> |>>interfaces to upper-layers will cause confusion?
> |>>Wouldn't it be better to delegate this upper-layer
> |>>trigger function to L3?
> |>>
> |>>Greg
> |>