IEEE 802 21 MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN Title

• IEEE 802. 21 MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER • DCN: • Title: Workflow for IEEE 802. 21 Specification work • Date Submitted: July, 11, 2005 • Presented at IEEE 802. 21 session #9 in San Francisco • Authors or Source(s): • Yogesh Bhatt, Qiaobing Xie, Hong-Yon Lach, Alistair Buttar • Abstract: This submission proposes a workflow for IEEE 802. 21 to adopt to identify and resolve inconsistencies in the current baseline draft specification. 21 -05 -00 xx-00 -XXXX

IEEE 802. 21 presentation release statements • This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 802. 21 Working Group. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing • • individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE 802. 21. The contributor is familiar with IEEE patent policy, as outlined in Section 6. 3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual <http: //standards. ieee. org/guides/opman/sect 6. html#6. 3> and in Understanding Patent Issues During IEEE Standards Development http: //standards. ieee. org/board/pat/guide. html> 21 -05 -00 xx-00 -XXXX

Workflow for IEEE 802. 21 Specification work Yogesh Bhatt, Qiaobing Xie, Hong-Yon Lach, Alistair Buttar Motorola Inc 21 -05 -00 xx-00 -XXXX

Workflow for enhancing 802. 21 draft spec 2. Make sure each primitive and its definition details are consistent with the ref. models. If not, we need to ask whether the primitive is the right thing to do, or the ref. model need to be fixed. 1. Make sure that SAPs are in consistency with ref. models. Primitive 1: • semantics, Primitive 1: Ref. Models MIH_SAP • syntax, • semantics, • attributes, • syntax, • rules for invoking and handling, • attributes, • transport needs, • rules for invoking and handling, • etc. • transport needs, • etc. Other SAPs 3. The results of the workflow will be used to elaborate the functional descriptions in the draft specification - this may require certain sections to be rewritten. 21 -05 -00 xx-00 -XXXX

Proposed Section 7 Outline (with consistency to ref. models) 7. MIH SAPs and Primitives 7. 1 Introduction 7. 2 MIH_SAP and its Primitives (this is the only thing truly media independent) 7. 3 SAPs for 802. 3 interface 7. 3. 1 MIH_MAC_SAP 7. 3. 2 LSAP (or MIH_LSAP) 7. 4 SAPs for 802. 11 interface 7. 4. 1 MIH_MAC_SAP 7. 4. 2 LSAP (or MIH_LSAP) 7. 4. 3 MIH_MGMT_SAP 7. 4. 4 MIH_ME_SAP 7. 5 SAPs for 802. 16 interface 7. 5. 1 CS_SAP (or MIH_CS_SAP) 7. 5. 2 MIH_MGMT_SAP 7. 5. 3 MIH_ME_SAP 7. 6 SAPs for 3 GPP interface 7. 6. 1 MIH_RRC_SAP 7. 6. 2 MIH_MGMT_SAP 7. 7 SAPs for 3 GPP 2 interface 7. 7. 1 MIH_PPP_SAP 7. 7. 2 MIH_LAC_SAP 7. 7. 3 MIH_MGMT_SAP 21 -05 -00 xx-00 -XXXX

Examples of Consistency Check between Ref. Models and SAPs (1) 1) Figure 5 “MIH Reference Model for 802. 11” shows MIH_MAC_SAP between MIHF and 802. 11 MAC: • Inconsistency: This SAP is not defined in the spec. • Fix: Add a subsection in Section 7 that defines “MIH_MAC_SAP to 802. 11 MAC” 2) Section 7. 2 defines MIH_MGMT_SAP Primitives: • Inconsistency: Section 7. 2 does not say whether this is the MIH_MGMT_SAP between MIHF and 802. 11 as shown in Fig. 5, or the MIH_MGMT_SAP between MIHF and 802. 16 as shown in Fig. 6, or the one shown in Fig. 7, or the one shown in Fig. 8. • Fix: A separate MIH_MGMT_SAP must be defined for each scenario (in separate subsection in Section 7). If some or all of them are identical, the spec must say so. 21 -05 -00 xx-00 -XXXX

Examples of Consistency Check between Ref. Models and SAPs (2) 3) Section 7. 3 defines MIH_SME_SAP Primitives: • Inconsistency: No MIH_SME_SAP is shown in any reference model (only MIH_ME_SAP in Figure 5). • Fix: Need to fix either the ref. model or 7. 3. 4) Section 7. 4. 6. 1 defines MIH_Poll. request as part of MIH_SAP: • Inconsistency: As part of MIH_SAP, the receiving entity of this primitive must by MIHF according to the ref. models, what is the expected behavior of the MIHF upon receiving this primitive from the upper layer? • Fix: Re-define “Effect of receipt” of the primitive - it must talk about the actions/behaviors of the destination MIHF (not the MAC which is not the recipient of this primitive). 21 -05 -00 xx-00 -XXXX