Subject: [seamoby] RE: Terminology draft

From: Zach Shelby <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:05:52 +0200

After reviewing draft-brain-seamoby-terms-00.txt I find it to be an
excellent compilation of very reasonable terminology and encourage all
to get comments back to the authors on this.  Is it possible for this
draft (or one similar) to go to RFC for seamoby?

Comment. Add a section on synonyms, including all the alternative
terms floating around our different backgrounds, with the appropriate
equivalent term of the draft. BS = AP is a good start.

Another. Section 2.2.1 (scope of handover) Add a "layer 2 handover"
example situation to the appendix. I'm still not clear how this is a
handover. If the same interface has multiple channels which the user
can use, isn't that micro-diversity? Or should it could be called
"layer 2 reconfiguration", or not be called at all.

Regards,
Zach

----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Zach Shelby - Researcher         [email-masked]
   VTT Elektronics                  Phone   +358 8 551 2164 (Office)
   Kaitoväylä 1, PL 1100            Fax     +358 8 551 2320
   90571 Oulu, Finland              Mobile  +358 40 7796297 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    http://paula.oulu.fi/~zdshelby
       Home:   Yliopistokatu 14-707  90570 Oulu, Finland

---

From: Jukka Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:04:50 +0200 (EET)

Hi Zach,

	Thank you for your comments and support for the draft, we REALLY
appreciate it. Here are some answers to your comments.

	Regards,

	Jukka

> equivalent term of the draft. BS = AP is a good start.

	I'm not sure whether that would be the best way. Maybe the descriptions
could be rephrased so that the synonyms would always be the last sentence of a
definition.

> "layer 2 reconfiguration", or not be called at all.

	The layer 2 handover was meant to describe a handover between APs (or
"base-stations") which would not be directly visible at the IP-layers, for
example the IP-routing would not change. Of course every handover is at least
layer 2. The point is that the "serving AP" changes. In our work a layer 2
handover is not really needed, but was included in order to, hopefully, remove
confusion about terminology.