Re: [802.21] Questions of SAP "MIH_Link_Actions.request"
Shunneng Yang
First these are not the same questions as asked before.
You asked two questions before, now there is only one question.
Annex L is an informative Annex, not normative.
If I understand your question as only one action is included (or
shown) when there multiple actions that need to occur, then ....
MIH_Link_Actions.request (7.4.16) does contain 2 entries as you
state, but one is a LIST which permits multiple actions to be
taken. All of these actions can be included in one
MIH_Link_Actions.request. The contents of the
MIH_Link_Actions.request is not shown in Annex L nor are all of the
actions that occur, but that is no cause for alarm. As I said before
Annex L is informative and therefore carries no weight (or details)
against the normative text (where the details are).
Therefore I do not see a problem. There are many details described
in the normative text that are not shown in the informative Annex
L. If you want details, read the normative text. Do not base your
knowledge of 802.21 on a few informative graphs.
"Informative text is provided for information only and is therefore
not officially part of the standard."
And if your question is about the connecting after a scan, then ...
It is my understanding that each graph builds upon the previous ones.
You should have problems with the graph shown on 268 too. Here it
states only MIH_Link_Actions.request and confirm. From this you
should understand that these graphs are not all inclusive in the
details and therefore do not show everything that you think should be shown.
That is what the normative text is for.
Question to you.
In Annex L was removed would it take any critical information away
from the standard?
David Cypher
====================================
At 03:16 AM 5/5/2008, Shun-Neng Yang wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>
>I have just reviewed the standard "IEEE P802.21/D10.0", and the
>questions I mentioned in D9.1 still exist, so I repeat my questions
>again with new index of D10.0:
>
>
>The SAP "MIH_Link_Actions.request" has 2 entries: (MIHF_ID and
>LIST(LINK_ACTION_REQ)).
>
>According to Table C-4, LINK_ACTION_REQ is derived from
>SEQUENCE(LINK_ID, CHOICE(NULL, LINK_ADDR), LINK_ACTION,
>LINK_AC_EX_TIME).
>LINK_ACTION is derived from SEQUENCE(LINK_AC_TYPE, LINK_AC_ATTR),
>their definitions are listed in
>Table C-5 and C-6 respectively.
>
>Let's take a look at the flow chart in page.277, here the
>SEQUENCE(LINK_AC_TYPE, LINK_AC_ATTR) in MIH_Link_Actions.request
>should be (0: NONE, LINK_SCAN), is it right?
>If it is, then in page.279, what is the content of
>SEQUENCE(LINK_AC_TYPE, LINK_AC_ATTR) in MIH_Link_Actions.request?
>If the SEQUENCE here is (4: LINK_POWER_UP, DATA_FWD_REQ), then why the
>link is "powered up" here?
>If link wasn't powered up until this SAP had been generated, then how
>can we do "LINK_SCAN" in the MIH_Link_Actions.request in page.277? It
>looks like the link wasn't "powered up" in page.277.
>
>Should we modify the definitions of "4: LINK_POWER_UP" and add a new
>definition "5: CONNECT" for LINK_AC_TYPE in Table C-5?
>Then the definitions of LINK_POWER_UP and CONNECT may be "Turn on the
>radio and cause the link to power up" and "Establish L2 connectivity"
>respectively.
>
>
>Thank you for your attention, I am looking forward to receiving your reply.
>
>Sincerely yours,
>
>Shunneng Yang
>Software Engineer
>Information and Communication Research Labs, ITRI
>Tel. : +886-3-591-2286 (O)
>E-mail: aaroh0407@gmail.com