Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802.21] SAP semantics



Title: Re: [802.21] SAP semantics

 

Agree with Phil, Cheng Hong and Hong-Yon.

MIH_SAP acts as focal point of communication for all MIH Users for all MIH functionality. All MIH primitives are exposed through this SAP.

MIH Function uses appropriate L2/L3 transport functions to provide the functionality exposed by this SAP for remote communication.

MIH Users don’t directly interact with transport functions for executing MIH functionality.

 

Best Regards

-Vivek

 


From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Hong-Yon Lach
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 4:23 AM
To: Cheng Hong; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802.21] SAP semantics

 

Salut all,

A SAP is defined to provide an abstraction of service between a service provider entity and its user entities in the local system. A protocol provides a specification of interactions and operations between “peer” entities in different (sometimes virtual) systems with well-defined PDUs exchanges over a communications transport.

If a local MIH-user needs a remote services by a remote MIHF, it makes its request to the local MIHF through the MIH SAP. The local MIHF determines that it needs the support of a remote MIHF, it thus performs the necessary operations with the remote MIHF using the MIH protocol. Upon the end of the MIH protocol operation, the local MIHF provides a response to the MIH-user via the MIH SAP.

An entity can initiate the execution of its function and/or protocol by many different triggers: timeout of a timer, request by its users, detection of certain system conditions, reception of a PDU from its peer, etc. The entity can initiate its function and/or protocol without going through its SAP. A SAP is not the only means to have its serving entity to initiate a function and/or protocol.

I hopes this addresses your concerns.

Cheers,
Hong-Yon


Message Classification:
[ ] General Business Use Only
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary

Hong-Yon Lach
Lab Manager, Edge Mobile Networking Lab (EMNL)
Office: +33 (0)169352536; Mobile: +33 (0)607590268


From: Cheng Hong <Hong.Cheng@SG.PANASONIC.COM>
Reply-To: Cheng Hong <Hong.Cheng@SG.PANASONIC.COM>
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 15:40:35 +0800
To: <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
Conversation: [802.21] SAP semantics
Subject: Re: [802.21] SAP semantics

Hi Adrian and all,

What you described is generally true. However, with regard to the original question, I don't think it is necessary to have two separate SAPs.

The question regarding the remote MIH communication is different from a local use case. In a remote scenario, conceptually, the local MIHF becomes a user of the remote MIHF. The command is sent via the MIH Protocol (either via L2 or L3), and should be processed by the remote MIHF. In this case, there should be no problem for the remote MIHF to make use of the MIH_SAP for the commands come in via the MIH Protocol, since functions supported over the MIH protocol should not be different from that of the local MIHF. Therefore, it is rather an optimized design.

cheers

Cheng Hong


 


From: stds-802-21@ieee.org  [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Stephens, Adrian  P
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 3:09 PM
To: Phillip  Barber; Peretz Feder
Cc: Andrea Francini;  STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: RE: [802.21] SAP  semantics

 
 
Hello All,

 
 
While Phillip's answer is correct,  I'd say it's not  optimal.

 
 
The SAP should group together all the primitives that are  required

for one instance of a particular entity to provide  services to an instance

of another entity.

 
 
If each entity is providing services to the other,   I'd respectfully

suggest that two SAPs should be  provided.   This should make the

description of the purpose of the SAP  clearer.

 
 
Also,  architecturally,  it also makes it  possible to reroute the

communications,  e.g. to insert a  new

entity that relates to just one SAP and has no effect on  the other

such as a new fragmentation/reassembly  sublayer.

 
 
 
 
Best Regards,

 
 
Adrian

 


 


From: stds-802-21@ieee.org  [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of Phillip  Barber
Sent: 04 September 2006 07:07
To: Peretz  Feder
Cc: Andrea Francini;  STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802.21] SAP  semantics

 
 
My quick answer is 'Yes'.
 
 
 
The SAP is just a focal point for  communications in the model.
 
 
 
While for any specific message exchange through  a SAP the roles of the participants are set, the roles of the participants  may change from message exchange-to-message exchange. In one exchange the MS  may be a service user. In another exchange the MS may be a service  provider.
 
 
 
Thanks,
Phillip Barber
Chief Scientist
Broadband Wireless  Solutions
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD.
 
----- Original Message -----
 


From:  Peretz  Feder <mailto:pfeder@lucent.com>  
 
To: phillip Barber <mailto:pbarber@BROADBANDMOBILETECH.COM>  
 
Cc: Andrea Francini <mailto:francini@lucent.com>  ; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org  
 
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 8:31  PM
 
Subject: Re: [802.21] SAP  semantics
 

Phil, as the 802.16g SAP expert, what is your take on the  following?

Can an entity (MIHF 802.21 in this case) that provides services through a SAP (MIH_SAP)
also obtain services (transport and delivery of commands to a remote MIHF)
through the same SAP?

Andrea wrote: I always thought that at the two ends of a SAP the roles of service user and
service provider are fixed. Is this not the case? Can the same entity (the MIHF
in our case) be at the same time a service provider and a service user with
respect to the same SAP?

Peretz Feder


On 9/3/2006 12:56 AM, Andrea Francini wrote:
 

Hello Everyone,

I have a very basic question from reading the latest 802.21 draft
(P802-21-D01-09):

In section 5.6 (page 29, line 34 through 40) I find the following statement:

"The MIH_SAP and associated primitives provide the interface from MIHF to the
upper layers of the mobility-management stack. Upper layers need to register
with MIHF as users to receive MIHF generated events and also for link layer
events that originate at layers below the MIHF but may be passed on to upper
layers through MIHF. Upper layers may directly send commands to MIHF. Similarly
MIHF entity may also send commands to another remote (peer) MIHF entity.
Primitives corresponding to all these services described above are within the
scope of MIH_SAP."

The statement indicates that MIHF provides services to a number of upper layers
(MIH users) through the MIH_SAP. Then the statement also seems to indicate (the
wording is not totally explicit) that MIHF can use MIH_SAP to send commands to a
remote MIHF entity.

My question is about the general SAP semantics:

Can an entity (MIHF in this case) that provides services through a SAP (MIH_SAP)
also obtain services (transport and delivery of commands to a remote MIHF)
through the same SAP?

I always thought that at the two ends of a SAP the roles of service user and
service provider are fixed. Is this not the case? Can the same entity (the MIHF
in our case) be at the same time a service provider and a service user with
respect to the same SAP?

Thanks a lot,

Andrea