Re: [802.21] [Mipshop] Re: Architectural Considerations for Handover InformationServices (was: Re: CARD Discussion Query Discussion)
I just want to emphasize a point Hong-Yon has made (repeatedly) - that
the information in the DB is not dynamic of nature does NOT mean that
the access to the information by the UE is not going to be time
sensitive. The most common and sensible engineering approach for a small
device that needs to access a DB is to fetch the needed info on-demand.
Predictive-fetching is not an easy thing to do (one would need to have a
good prediction algorithm) and duplicating the entire info on the device
is simply impractical.
regards,
-Qiaobing
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
>
>
>
> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>