Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)
Phillip Barber wrote:
> I agree with your observations.
>
> I see 802.21's job as a facilitator to help namespace/numberspace
> management reach a common understanding so interoperable, common
> behavior can result. But 802.21 does not have adequate mandate or
> authority to enforce such action on other SDOs.
>
> But I have to say, 253 byte string fields are wholly unacceptable for
> air interface broadcast events in any timely manner that would be
> useful. Bear in mind that broadcast events are invariably transmitted at
> the worst possible burst profile. It is a burden if you have to transmit
> a single 253 byte Operator ID code every minute or so. It is completely
> untenable if you have to transmit a list of twenty or a hundred of these
> every second, which can happen if the Access Network supports multiple
> CSNs, especially with the support of virtual CSNs. And lets not forget
> over-the-air transmission of the CSN IDs for roaming partners. So the
> size of the Operator ID that is viable is tied to the quantity of
> Operator IDs to be transmitted over-the-air and the frequency of
> broadcast of these values. Even as unicast transmissions to individual
> MS, made with more robust burst profiles, this could be pretty large
> blobs of data.
This observation applies to many other IEs as well. Right now the
compactness of information element representation is taking a back seat
in the discussion. The only two encoding options on the table are TLV
and XML - neither is meant for compactness.
regards,
-Qiaobing
>
> Thanks,
> Phillip Barber
> Chief Scientist
> Broadband Wireless Solutions
> Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Qiaobing Xie"
> <Qiaobing.Xie@motorola.com>
> To: "Phillip Barber" <pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM>
> Cc: <STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 5:40 PM
> Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: Re:
> [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we expose in IEs? (doc:
> 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)
>
>
> Phillip Barber wrote:
>
>> I disagree.
>>
>> The whole point of having a standardized media independent way of
>> conducting handover was to make it so that each of the technologies
>> could have a single model to write to, 802.21, instead of creating
>> different proprietary models of there own, each for different
>> technologies. What you propose then would be to have 3GPP2 write one
>> method of identifying networks and negotiating handover among various
>> technologies, 3GPP creating a different method, 802.16 creating
>> another, 802.11 creating another, etc.... And it does not sound to me
>> like any of them would be interoperable.
>
>
> The focus here is just the Operator Name field, what should be put there
> and what the value should mean. I don't think any one is talking about
> abandoning 802.21. From the previous discussion on this thread, the
> syntax and semantics of operator name clearly have a strong connection
> to the business model and agreement (who own which part of what). I just
> don't see how 802.21 by itself can impose anything there.
>
>> It sounds to me like you are endorsing having each industry segment
>> create its own methodology which, once again, create multiple
>> non-standardized methods for conducting handover. Please correct me if
>> I misunderstand.
>
>
> We create the technology that allows everyone to associate with everyone
> else. But whether that will happen is beyond 802.21. In this particular
> case, a container will work - if the entire community can agree to have
> a single association, then they simply define and manage a universal
> namespace and put the name in the container. If not, they define
> separate namespace and put the name in the container. Either way, the
> 802.21 container will work just fine.
>
>>
>> If all you wanted was some payload 'hooks' then none of 802.21 is
>> really necessary. You could have just gone to each of the technology
>> specific standards bodies and asked for the hooks. 802.21 only exists
>> to create a common, standardized method to use those hooks. 802.21 is
>> glue language; the common language that each of the other bodies
>> writes to. So 802.21 has to create the common interface for that
>> action. That means mapping and presenting information elements like
>> network identifiers in some common manner so that other technologies,
>> other implementations will have a common understanding and can create
>> MS and network behavioral models that can achieve similar and
>> consistent handover results.
>
>
> I did not intend to generalize the discussion. Let's only talk about the
> operator name here. When an "operator name" IE is sent from A to B,
> 802.21 takes the value from A and pass to B and makes sure that B will
> understand this blob of data is an "operator name" IE, but 802.21 will
> not say anything about whether the value is right/wrong, good/bad,
> legal/illegal, allowed/disallowed, etc. This because only the name
> authority can judge the value of the name field. I don't see 802.21 can
> or should play that role.
>
> regards,
> -Qiaobing
>
>>
>> Just my opinion.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Phillip Barber
>> Chief Scientist
>> Broadband Wireless Solutions
>> Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Qiaobing Xie"
>> <Qiaobing.Xie@motorola.com>
>> To: "Phillip Barber" <pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM>
>> Cc: <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 1:27 PM
>> Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which
>> operator should we expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment
>> Assignments)
>>
>>
>> Being a "Placeholder" means some secondary stds body (for example an
>> cellular and non-cellular network owner/operator association that wants
>> to build a cross-tech mega roaming/handover service network based on
>> 802.21 technology) will have to step in after the completion of 802.21
>> spec and define and manage their own operator/owner namespace.
>> Interoperability would thus be guaranteed within that association.
>>
>> I don't see how 802.21 alone can accomplish network interoperability
>> without the involvement of the actual owners/operators anyway.
>>
>> regards,
>> -Qiaobing
>>
>> Phillip Barber wrote:
>>
>>> You could do it, but I would not expect interoperability. That is to
>>> say, there would be no consistent presentation of information, so no
>>> Mobile Station behavior could be standardized because information is
>>> not reliably/consistently provided. If you don't care about
>>> interoperability you could simply create a generic payload delivery
>>> method and let vendors stuff whatever proprietary info into those
>>> payloads that they care to.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Phillip Barber
>>> Chief Scientist
>>> Broadband Wireless Solutions
>>> Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Qiaobing Xie"
>>> <Qiaobing.Xie@MOTOROLA.COM>
>>> To: "Subir Das" <subir@RESEARCH.TELCORDIA.COM>
>>> Cc: <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 11:27 AM
>>> Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we
>>> expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not simply define it as a 802.21 placeholder/container
>>> "Owner/Operator Info" IE containing an unrestricted character string and
>>> let the actual operators/owners/partners associations (like the current
>>> GSMA) to decide whatever most suitable for their then business model to
>>> put in there.
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> -Qiaobing
>>>
>>> Subir Das wrote:
>>>
>>>> Phillip Barber wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I would tend to agree. The mere identification that there is a
>>>>> roaming agreement--that is to say the identification of a Visited
>>>>> CSN (with appropriate AAA) with a roaming agreement to a Mobile
>>>>> Subscriber's Home CSN--is available may very well be adequate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would also agree. But why does MS need to know the Visited AAA?
>>>> Corner case: where L1/L2 and L3/L4 operators are different in a
>>>> visited network
>>>> (assuming Home Network has roaming agreement with both of them),
>>>> which operator's information should be exposed? Anyone or both of them?
>>>>
>>>>> As for identification of Visited CSNs that have a roaming agreement
>>>>> with a given Home CSN, the list may be presented over-the-air or in
>>>>> a configuration file in the MS, with periodic update. For some
>>>>> networks, over-the-air does not present too much of a problem, when
>>>>> the list is small. For other networks, the list of roaming CSN IDs
>>>>> could be huge making over-the-air impractical, so configuration
>>>>> files that receive periodic update are used.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Phillip Barber
>>>>> Chief Scientist
>>>>> Broadband Wireless Solutions
>>>>> Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* McCann, Stephen <mailto:stephen.mccann@ROKE.CO.UK>
>>>>> *To:* Gupta, Vivek G <mailto:vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM> ; Phillip
>>>>> Barber <mailto:pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM> ;
>>>>> ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM <mailto:ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM> ;
>>>>> Junghoon Jee <mailto:jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR>
>>>>> *Cc:* STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>>>>> <mailto:STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:53 AM
>>>>> *Subject:* RE: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we expose
>>>>> in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> I would add a word of caution to this, as within IEEE 802.11u we
>>>>> have assumed that in the future
>>>>> there should be no reliance on the association between the SSID
>>>>> and the access service provider,
>>>>> even though it is used in this fashion at the moment. The SSID
>>>>> should only be considered as a hint
>>>>> and does not always indicate who or what you are connecting to.
>>>>> Currently there are contractual agreements between operators
>>>>> (which can vary based on who they
>>>>> are - there is no standardised format as far as I know.) From an
>>>>> 802.21 perspective, the roaming
>>>>> agreement itself is not important to the mobile terminal. It's the
>>>>> fact that one exists that is important.
>>>>> Hence I think that 802.21 should not worry too much about how
>>>>> roaming agreements are expressed.
>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>> Stephen
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> *From:* stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] *On
>>>>> Behalf Of *Gupta, Vivek G
>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:11 PM
>>>>> *To:* Phillip Barber; ajayrajkumar@lucent.com; Junghoon Jee
>>>>> *Cc:* STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>>>>> *Subject:* RE: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we
>>>>> expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems like we may need two operator identifiers to cover the
>>>>> general case.
>>>>>
>>>>> How are roaming agreements expressed? Are they relevant to
>>>>> only Core Service Providers or to Access Service Providers as
>>>>> well?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this information useful to a MS from a handover decision
>>>>> making perspective…and are operators generally amenable to
>>>>> making this available?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> -Vivek
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] *On
>>>>> Behalf Of *Phillip Barber
>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 05, 2006 12:25 PM
>>>>> *To:* ajayrajkumar@lucent.com; Junghoon Jee
>>>>> *Cc:* STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we
>>>>> expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment Assignments)
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say:
>>>>>
>>>>> Access Service Provider - characterized by providing L1&L2
>>>>> level access and may include some authentication (device
>>>>> authentication; L1&L2 and some L3&L4 capabilities
>>>>> negotiation; L1&L2 authentication). Access Service Network
>>>>> ID is usually analogous to Operator ID in 802.16 or
>>>>> infrastructure based SSID in 802.11. It tells you who you
>>>>> are connecting to, but not necessarily who is
>>>>> authenticating your use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Core Service Provider- characterized by providing L3&L4
>>>>> level access and almost certainly includes AAA
>>>>> authentication (perhaps device authentication; certainly
>>>>> user/account authentication; some L3&L4 capabilities
>>>>> negotiation). Calling this 'Mobility Service Provider' is
>>>>> really a misnomer. Calling it the Mobility Service
>>>>> Provider is a legacy distinction based on regulatory and
>>>>> marketing, not technical functional. On a technical level,
>>>>> if PMIP, then yes, HA will be in the Core Service Network.
>>>>> But the FA is in the Access Service Network and all actual
>>>>> mobility activity occurs in the ASN, not the CSN. And of
>>>>> course the CSN may very well be a visited CSN, perhaps
>>>>> even likely. Only rationale for calling the CSN the
>>>>> Mobility Service Provider is that the Mobile Station
>>>>> acquires its IP address from the CSN, if PMIP. If no PMIP
>>>>> (CMIP anyone?), it is even clearer. Anyway, mobility
>>>>> occurs in the Access Service Network, not the Core Service
>>>>> Network. Better to make the distinction based on who
>>>>> validates capabilities and authenticates. All should be
>>>>> viewed from the perspective/perception of the Mobile
>>>>> Station. CSN ID is more analogous to ITU E.212 MCC + MNC.
>>>>> MCC + MNC is not great, but it may be regulated anyway.
>>>>> May be required to be transmitted to meet regulatory
>>>>> requirements. Definitely should stay away from using NAI
>>>>> over the air. NAI can be huge; very expensive over the
>>>>> air. And ASN ID and CSN ID could very well be the same for
>>>>> many networks, especially 802.11 and 802.16 fixed/nomadic
>>>>> networks.
>>>>>
>>>>> My two cents.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Phillip Barber
>>>>> Chief Scientist
>>>>> Broadband Wireless Solutions
>>>>> Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Ajay Rajkumar <mailto:ajayrajkumar@lucent.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> *To:* Junghoon Jee <mailto:jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Cc:* STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>>>>> <mailto:STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 05, 2006 1:10 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [802.21] Issue #6 Which operator should we
>>>>> expose in IEs? (doc: 21-06-0667-00-0000_Comment
>>>>> Assignments)
>>>>>
>>>>> Junghoon Jee wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In my view, "core network operator" loosely can be
>>>>> interpreted as the
>>>>> "mobility service provider", i.e., the operator that owns
>>>>> the user.
>>>>>
>>>>> Junghoon>> For clarification, the more accurate
>>>>> interpretation about the feature of the mobility service
>>>>> provider is its having a mobility management entity like
>>>>> HA in case of MIP.
>>>>>
>>>>> [Ajay] I guess you are treating the "core network
>>>>> operator" as the "core transport operator", whereas, I was
>>>>> in fact treating "core operator" as the "home operator"
>>>>> including owning HA in case of MIP.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, if one has to look at the most general case of
>>>>> the entities
>>>>> involved in providing a service to an end host they would
>>>>> be as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> - Access Service Provider
>>>>> - Mobility Service Provider
>>>>> - "Services" Provider
>>>>>
>>>>> Junghoon>> Well, I am not so sure about the above
>>>>> categorization.
>>>>> I am more inclined to the definition from the IETF draft
>>>>> that was indicated from the previous message. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Each of the above typically has some level of
>>>>> Authentication/Authorization functionality and depending
>>>>> on the the
>>>>> network some of these AA functionalities may be optional
>>>>> at an implementation/deployment level.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, these Authentication/Authorization functions could
>>>>> be delegated to an independent entity. However, in the
>>>>> current networks typically this
>>>>> is not delegated. Bottomline, the most general case could
>>>>> involve six independent entities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering that AA functionality may be integrated by the
>>>>> provider, three entities may still be involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Junghoon>> Back to the main issue of which operator
>>>>> information we would expose in IEs...
>>>>> I am not still questioning to myself about the feasibility
>>>>> and effectiveness of exposing the _core_ operator's
>>>>> information to IEs.
>>>>> How can a MIH Information Server gather the core
>>>>> operators' information depending on the varying mobile
>>>>> nodes and can pick up the right information for a specific
>>>>> mobile node? Do we have to depend on the seed information
>>>>> like NAI in case of AAA?
>>>>> Moreover, what benefit can a mobile node expect by
>>>>> receiving the core operator's information in terms of
>>>>> seamless handover?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Any thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>> -Junghoon
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>