RE: [802.21] [Mipshop] Re: Architectural Considerations for Handover InformationServices (was: Re: CARD Discussion Query Discussion)

["Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <ASINGH1@MOTOROLA.COM>]

Several comments:

- Informaiton encoding is one design factor, but we should think more
about other factors such as extensibility, flexibility, and actual
volume of encoded contents (regardless of how it is encoded).

Ajoy-> Sure, what makes you think that size of XML encoded message will
be smaller than TLV encoded message? TLV can be extensible and flexible
as well. 
TLV encoding is used by very successful protocol such as L2TP that is
highly deployed and highly extensible as well.   

- In reality, 3GPP2 has XML-based method (e.g., XCAP) in its
dependency list.

Ajoy-> OK, I think it will be good to know if XML is being recommended
by of cellular standards for control plane signaling or handover related
signaling. 
 

Yoshihiro Ohba



On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 06:19:26PM -0400, Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 wrote:
>      But it does not seem to be true given the current discussion. 
> 
>  
> 
> Ajoy-> In IETF folks are trying to help 802.21 to get the work done
> better. 
> 
> I do not believe there is anything wrong if some folks do not agree
with
> XML query. Honestly I do not believe XML query is  good for low power 
> 
> mobile devices. Based upon our current experience folks are finding
hard
> to cope up with SIP and SIP compression itself. It looks good on
paper, 
> 
> but somehow when you implement compression you may find that delay
> introduced by compression out performs the bandwidth saving gained
from 
> 
> compression. I do not believe that adding one more level of
compression
> for XML will be better idea. 
> 
> As a research topic it may look very attractive, but we have to look
at
> today's reality. I would like to state that in one of my discussions 
> 
> I suggested that even TLV encoding can be modified to carry XML script
> to address some use cases where XML may be a good choice. 
> 
> I am afraid we are trying to push XML without considering reality at
> hand. 
> 
>  
> 
> Also, what is wrong about sharing view of 802.21 when MIPSHOP is going
> to define a protocol that would cater need of 
> 
> 802.21 itself?  
> 
>  
> 
> Nothing wrong in sharing the view.  But do we need to  mention the
straw
> poll result to establish our  technical reasoning? 
> 
>  
> 
> Ajoy-> Perhaps you did not like the word straw poll.  I will make note
> of that.  I think enough reasoning was given to justify that 
> 
> XML query complex query may not be good for low power mobile devices. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>