Re: [802.21] Meeting minutes of today's ad-hoc teleconference
Hi Yoshihiro,
Thanks for your
clarification.
>> By the way,
>> when will it
be the case of (1:n)?
>
> An UE attached with only one NISP can
communicate with multiple IS
> Functions within the NISP, if the
information databases are
> distributed in the NISP. An example is
that XML/RDF databases can be
> distributed similar to DNS.
>
It seems like
rather implementation issue
We are
considering the interface between IS functions in the UE and in the
network
and I think the term NISP
is adopted to be used as the peer concept of the UE.
Thus, if we assume
that there is one IS function in the NISP,
it will be a lot
simpler and easier to understand.
BTW, does indicating the
relationship(1:n) have an effect on making requirements?
If not, why don't we leave it out from the reference model and all Use-Cases.
Regards,
Eunah
>>
>> My understanding is that
one UE can communicate with only one NISP at a moment.
>> The reason
for having (1:n) would be the case that the UE moves so needs to
connect
>> with a different NISP from the previous one. Am I
right?
>
> Yes, the multi-NISP case is one obvious reason.
There can be other
> reason as I described above. BTW, I think the
current reference model
> does not seem to preclude the case in which one
UE communicates with
> multiple NISPs at a moment, as the model just
defines interfaces. We
> can discuss this level of details in the
process of identifying actual
> requirements.
>
> Hope this
helps,
>
> Yoshihiro Ohba