Re: [802.21] [Mipshop] Re: Architectural Considerations for Handover InformationServices (was: Re: CARD Discussion Query Discussion)
On 10/20/2005 1:16 PM, Subir Das wrote:
> Peretz,
> I agree with your view. We do not expect that such information will change
> with real time and during handover. Also as you have mentioned, we are
> enabling
> handover decision process with the IS. The major part of this handover
> process
> such as policy, network selection , etc, are out of scope.
Subir: Yes out of scope, but can still be delivered by the service provider as
an IS element. The 802.21 spec will enable such mechanism through IS info exchange.
>
> -Subir
>
>
>
> Peretz Feder wrote:
>
>>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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>