On 10/20/2005 8:40 AM, Hong-Yon Lach wrote:
I have heard examples in which I would consider the information as dynamic,
such as the "neighbouring network/access points available that match ..."
neighboring info could change every few hours indeed, but wouldn't you agree it
is considered static for an HO process that should be in the few msec range?
and examples in which the information is very static (does not change much
with time).
The dynamic nature of information, depending on the specific piece of
information, could be different according to deployment, and could change
over time.
Yes and even every few hours is good enough to be labeled static.
When IS is used in the preparation of handover, it would be nice to minimise
such preparation time, because the longer it is the more likely the risk of
losing current network coverage and making handover less seamless. Maybe IS
is not meant to be used in such context?
That is my understanding, which I expressed in many f2f meetings w/o much objection.
Anyway, it will be a good step
forward to know what we are assuming/doing/enabling and what we are not.
We are enabling the decision process, wherever it is located to be equipped with
all the pertinent info for a HO proper decision. this includes policy,
neighbors, provisioning, loading, etc.
Yoshihiro has given example about
From: Peretz Feder <pfeder@lucent.com>
Organization: Lucent Technologies
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 08:10:54 -0400
To: Hong-Yon Lach <hong-yon.lach@motorola.com>
Cc: <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
Subject: Re: [802.21] [Mipshop] Re: Architectural Considerations for Handover
InformationServices (was: Re: CARD Discussion Query Discussion)
On 10/20/2005 5:00 AM, Hong-Yon Lach wrote:
Apparently, we still have very different ideas in mind when we talk about IS
concerning what it is. A lot of discussions so far concerns how it should be
supported. Peretz, I think you pointed out the consequence that we can only
disagree about the assumption of IS.
We are not agreeing on its dynamic nature. The rest we do.
How IS is to be used and should be supported depends on what information IS
is dealing with. If we do not have consensus on the nature/type/purpose of
information to be coped with in IS, I don't see how 802.21 can produce a
requirement on IS and how MIPSHOP knows what it is doing for IS.
IS is dealing with all the relevant info that can assist the HO decision. To
assume that in a middle of a few msec hanodoff the IS DB can be queried for
pertinent HO info. and exchange all of that over L3 is a very loaded
assumption,
as it assumes that the IS DB will be updated at such resolutions and its info
be
relevant to a a few msec process.
Your bleak statement is not so black and white. IS info is relevant and can be
very well defined but it is not dynamic in nature.
Cheers,
Hong-Yon
From: Peretz Feder <pfeder@LUCENT.COM>
Organization: Lucent Technologies
Reply-To: Peretz Feder <pfeder@LUCENT.COM>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 01:03:18 -0400
To: <STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Subject: Re: [802.21] [Mipshop] Re: Architectural Considerations for
Handover
InformationServices (was: Re: CARD Discussion Query Discussion)
On 10/18/2005 6:11 PM, Qiaobing Xie wrote:
Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
...
- In reality, 3GPP2 has XML-based method (e.g., XCAP) in its
dependency list.
If I remember it right XCAP/XML is used there for maintaining the
address book/buddy list that sort of things. I can imagine that sort of
events only happen at most no more than a few times a day for any given
user and probably only happen when the user is NOT in a call. In
contrast, IS query/response likely will be part of the h/o call flow...
You are assuming IS is a dynamic information that can influence Handover per
the
IS query response. Many .21 members do not agree with this position. IS
should
be treated as static information that is provided to the HO decision entity
in
advance.
regards,
-Qiaobing
Yoshihiro Ohba