RE: [802.21] Ad-hoc Teleconferencec on Communication Model - October 18, 2005

[<Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com>]

     Subir> Why do we want to restrict this?  Our position should be we
don't care if two IS providers 
                 want to be in the at same place and  provide the same
info. This will possibly depend upon 
                 their business model, pricing  etc. It is  upto the UE
and the network operator to choose 
                 the right one and most likely it will be governed  by
the policy . 
Subir,
I agree with you that you can have multiple IS servers, there are
abosuletely no restrictions. You stated it youself, 'choose the right
one' for  the UE to use, either by UE or the network. The key is 'one',
for the type of service, which could be whole or partial.  If this is
restritive, we all should understand the usage scenarios which cannot
happen due to this.
 
Regards,
Srini


________________________________

	From: ext Subir Das [mailto:subir@research.telcordia.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:48 AM
	To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-NRC/Dallas)
	Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
	Subject: Re: [802.21] Ad-hoc Teleconferencec on Communication
Model - October 18, 2005
	
	
	Srini,
	One small comment.
	
	Thanks,
	-Subir 
	
	

			
			    

				-----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? 

	     Subir> Why do we want to restrict this?  Our position
should be we don't care if two IS providers 
	                 want to be in the at same place and  provide
the same info. This will possibly depend upon 
	                 their business model, pricing  etc. It is  upto
the UE and the network operator to choose 
	                 the right one and most likely it will be
governed  by the policy .