RE: [802.21] Ad-hoc Teleconferencec on Communication Model - October 18, 2005
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@intel.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:04 AM
>To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-NRC/Dallas);
>STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>Cc: Faccin Stefano (Nokia-NRC/Dallas)
>Subject: RE: [802.21] Ad-hoc Teleconferencec on Communication
>Model - October 18, 2005
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com
>> [mailto:Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 6:45 AM
>> To: Gupta, Vivek G; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> Cc: stefano.faccin@nokia.com
>> Subject: RE: [802.21] Ad-hoc Teleconferencec on
>Communication Model -
>> October 18, 2005
>>
>>
>>
>> >If a UE is connected to a single L2 link can we have a MIH
>PoS in PoA
>> >and possibly another L3 MIH PoS somewhere else in the network?
>> >If a UE is connected to multiple L2 links how is a MIH PoS at
>> >L3 associated with a network w.r.t above restriction?
>>
>> My thought was that the UE may not receive CS from multiple MIH
>entities
>> and UE cannot decide on the info authenticity if there were multiple
>> sources of IS. I agree with you that there is a possibiliy
>that these
>> MIH services can be shared between L3 and L2 MIH entities.
>But it must
>> be in a way that they are not conflicting in the offered services. I
>> think we should capture this. I was thinking about stating
>generically
>> that multiple MIH PoS can provide partial MIH services (IS,
>ES and CS)
>> but the provided (partial) services in such a way they are not
>> conflicting with other services offered by other MIH PoS. How does
>this
>> sound?
>
>[Vivek G Gupta]
>...not very convincing.
>It should be left to UE and MIH enabled network entities (MIH
>PoS) to discover each other, decide and negotiate an
>association. Given that there can well be multiple instances
>of such associations and it would be up to the UE to select
>and sign up for appropriate services for each association and
>also possibly deal with multiple instances of such
>associations and individual services.
>Maybe this needs to be better explained in doc. I don't have
>any good practical scenarios though.
>
Srini)) I need to understand you better. My question is - why would a UE
have two IS providers (MIH PoS) in the same network providing same
information? Why would the UE receive the same CS from two different
MIH PoS? If so, which one is authentic?
>>
>> >Also even if the above restriction is true how shall it be
>> >enforced/applied?
>> It can be done in several ways. E.g. Info in discovery
>mechanisms can
>> say what specific MIH service capabilities are on a given given MIH
>PoS.
>>
>[Vivek G Gupta]
>Sure but can you prevent UE from making multiple associations
>with multiple network side MIH PoS. If not then IMO the above
>cannot be enforced/applied.
>
We are not restricting in the number of MIH PoS associations from UE, it
is the capabilities on that association is what is of interest. We are
trying to avoid the duplication on that capabilities. If you think we
need it, some useful scenarios can help us understand. The enforcement
is automatic, in the sense that the MIH entities know what they are
providing.
Regards,
Srini
>
>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: ext Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM]
>> >Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 10:50 PM
>> >To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> >Subject: Re: [802.21] Ad-hoc Teleconferencec on Communication
>> >Model - October 18, 2005
>> >
>> >O) The UE has only one network counter-part MIH PoS in one network
>for
>> >> > each of the MIH services (IS, ES and CS).
>> >>
>> >> I have no problem with this. An alternative is to have the service
>> >> specific architecture sections following this top level model to
>> >specify
>> >> their respective restrictions
>> >
>> >What is the motivation for above restriction?
>> >If a UE is connected to a single L2 link can we have a MIH PoS
>> >in PoA and possibly another L3 MIH PoS somewhere else in
>the network?
>> >If a UE is connected to multiple L2 links how is a MIH PoS at
>> >L3 associated with a network w.r.t above restriction?
>> >Also even if the above restriction is true how shall it be
>> >enforced/applied?
>> >
>> >BR,
>> >-Vivek
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On
>> >Behalf Of
>> >> Qiaobing Xie
>> >> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:31 PM
>> >> To: Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com
>> >> Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [802.21] Ad-hoc Teleconferencec on
>> >Communication Model -
>> >> October 18, 2005
>> >>
>> >> Srini,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks. Please see my response in-line.
>> >>
>> >> Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi Qiaobing and others,
>> >> > Thanks for the update. This picture seems to capture most of the
>> >> > possibilities we intend to enable. I would like to propose the
>> >following
>> >> > definitions and statements in the doc which, perhaps,
>are already
>> >> > assumed and implicitly understood.
>> >> >
>> >> > MIH Non-PoS Network Entity: Network-side MIH-capable node than
>can
>> >> > exchange MIH messages only with other MIH-capable network nodes.
>> >> > MIH Function: A functional implementation that utilizes MIH
>> >services.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I think both above defs are assumed. I personally have not
>> >problem
>> >> of making them explicit in the doc.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > The following statements should be embedded somewhere, for
>clarity.
>> >> >
>> >> > O) The UE has only one network counter-part MIH PoS in one
>network
>> >for
>> >> > each of the MIH services (IS, ES and CS).
>> >>
>> >> I have no problem with this. An alternative is to have the service
>> >> specific architecture sections following this top level model to
>> >specify
>> >> their respective restrictions.
>> >>
>> >> > O) It is possible that a single MIH PoS can host more than one
>MIH
>> >> > service. MIH PoS can provide different sets of MIH services to
>> >different
>> >> > UE in the network based on the subscription or roaming
>> >considerations.
>> >> > Effectively, an MIH PoS can provide only a subset or none of
>those
>> >> > services to a particular UE.
>> >>
>> >> I agree with this view. I see no reason to restrict otherwise.
>> >>
>> >> > O) The MIH PoS on a Non-PoA Network Entity and the MIH Non-PoS
>> >Network
>> >> > Entity could be located either in the serving or
>visited network,
>> >> > candidate network or other networks (e.g. home).
>> >>
>> >> I agree. I see no reason to restrict otherwise.
>> >>
>> >> regards,
>> >> -Qiaobing
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> > Srini
>> >> >
>> >> > >-----Original Message-----
>> >> > >From: ext Qiaobing Xie [mailto:Qiaobing.Xie@MOTOROLA.COM]
>> >> > >Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:37 PM
>> >> > >To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> >> > >Subject: [802.21] Ad-hoc Teleconferencec on
>> >Communication >Model
>> >> > - October 18, 2005 > >Dear all:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Our Ad-hoc conference call regarding the Communication Model
>> >> > >discussion will be held tomorrow Tuesday, October 18th from
>> >> > >9:00-11:00 A.M. EDT.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >I propose the following agenda:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >1) Review the 802.21 mailing list discussion on
>> >Link/PoA/MIH >PoS
>> >> > definitions >
>> >> > >2) Discuss the communication model based the revised
>> >> > >communication model document (attached).
>> >> > >
>> >> > >3) Discuss steps forward:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Dial-In Number (USA/CANADA): (877) 283-2663
>> >> > >Dial-In Number: (416) 621-1671
>> >> > >Access Code: 1190571
>> >> > >
>> >> > >regards,
>> >> > >-Qiaobing Xie
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >
>