Slide 2 of 8Helsinki TSG-T WG2 #5 06-09 Sep ‘99 T2-99669 v0.1 Discussion of Sync Standards 3G Information Device Users Require Access to the Same Information –Regardless of Location –Regardless of Device Types Personal Computers Servers Handheld or Palm-size Devices or Mobile Phones. –This Means The Information Needs to be Synchronised T2-(99)669 Provides Information on Existing Synchronisation Protocols By –Summarizing Proprietary and Open Standard Protocols Relevant to Current and Future Mobile Communication Devices and –Covering Only Synchronisation Between End-user Devices, Desktop Applications, and Server-based Information Services but –Not Covering Replication or Synchronisation Between Enterprise Databases.
Slide 3 of 8Helsinki TSG-T WG2 #5 06-09 Sep ‘99 T2-99669 v0.1 Existing Standards IrMC Extension to IrDA For Data Exchange Between –Mobile Devices and –Mobile Devices and Desktops or PDAs Defines Four Levels of Support for Information Exchange –Each Higher Level Must Support All of the Preceding Levels Level 1 (Minimum Level) Level 2 (Access Level) Level 3 (Index Level), and Level 4 (Sync Level). –Level 4 Does Not Require Level 3 –Levels 2 and 4 Are the Most Relevant for Sync Has Been Adopted by IrDA and Bluetooth Has Wide Industry Support.
Slide 4 of 8Helsinki TSG-T WG2 #5 06-09 Sep ‘99 T2-99669 v0.1 Existing Standards Bluetooth Adopted the IrMC Standard for SyncWAP Has Not Specified a Sync Standard Attempts to Form a Work Group Last Year Were Abandoned. MNCRS (Mobile Network Computer Reference Specification) Specified an API Providing Data-sync Services Focused on Java-enabled Devices Promoted by a Number of Companies Has Not Been Adopted by Any Formal Standards Body. Symbian’s ‘Synchronisation’ Composed of Puma, Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola, Starfish, and Lotus Disbanded Before Any Agreement Was Reached.
Slide 5 of 8Helsinki TSG-T WG2 #5 06-09 Sep ‘99 T2-99669 v0.1 Existing Standards MDSP (Mobile Data Synchronisation Protocol) Promoted by IBM Designed for Use Between –Mobile Devices Sporadically Connected to the Network and –Servers Continuously Connected to the Network Designed to Handle the Case Where Server and Device –Store Data in Different Formats and –Use Different Software Systems Can Be Used to Push Data Elements to One-Way Devices Has Not Been Adopted by Any Formal Standards Body.
Slide 6 of 8Helsinki TSG-T WG2 #5 06-09 Sep ‘99 T2-99669 v0.1 Narrowing the Playing Field One Adopted Mobile Standard that Addresses Sync:IrMC –Used in IrDA and BlueTooth –Defined by Handset Manufacturers to Provide a Means for Exchanging Data Between Mobile Devices, Desktops, Handhelds, Printers... –Supports Data Exchange With Phone Book, Calendar, Messaging and Note Applications –Works With Either Low or High Bandwidth Networks –May Be Used in Connection-oriented or Connectionless Links –Includes Stuff Like Call Control, Isochronous Audio Transmission, and Permissions for Getting and Setting the Real Time Clock. –Doesn’t Specifically Support an Optimized Mode for WAN Sync WAN Sync Presents a Unique Set of Problems for Efficient and Accurate Synchronisation.
Slide 7 of 8Helsinki TSG-T WG2 #5 06-09 Sep ‘99 T2-99669 v0.1 IrMC WAN Sync Issues Written to Exchange PIM Data in a PAN or Peer-to-Peer Environment Hasn’t Addressed Sync in a WAN Environment – Level 4 Dependent on Connection-Based Transport Protocol Requires a Connection-Oriented Service (in IrDA - IrLAP and IrLMP) A Persistent Connection Between Devices Is Difficult to Maintain in Some WANs (Latency Can Slow the Transactions to an Unacceptable Level or Cause Sync to Be Stopped) – Inefficient Data Exchange Data Exchanges Between an IrMC Client and Server Tend to Be Chatty and Inefficient. Each Object Sent Between Devices Requires a Separate Request/response Pair –GET Operations Entail a Request and Response for Each Object. –PUT Operations Can Be More Efficient in a Connectionless Environment, Since No Response Is Expected.
Slide 8 of 8Helsinki TSG-T WG2 #5 06-09 Sep ‘99 T2-99669 v0.1 Recommendations Address the Limitations of IrMC Level 4 Sync in a WAN by.. Modifying IrMC Level 4 to Address the WAN Limitations or Extending IrMC Level 4 to Include WAN Sync –Operate on Top of Existing Stacks –Use As Much Existing Code Base As Possible
Slide 9 of 8Helsinki TSG-T WG2 #5 06-09 Sep ‘99 T2-99669 v0.1 IrMC Technical Overview The IrMC Specification and Its Supporting OBEX Object Exchange Layer In an IrDA Application, Requires IrLAP, IrLMP, TTP, and IAS In a Bluetooth Application, Requires the Bluetooth Equivalent of These Layers Designed to Swap Transport and Below Layers While Keeping a Common Set of Applications. The Information Exchange Levels of Irmc Starts With Text-based Data Formats Using Industry-standard Data Formats - vCard, vCalendar, plus IETF Versions (in Proc) Adding Telecom-Specific Extensions to vCard Defining New Formats Where None Existed - vMessage, vNote Defining Space-Saving Binary Formats - bvCard, GBO (In Proc) Adding Sync-Specific Exchange Data Objects –Change Logs, Change Counters, Time Stamps –Information Logs on Database Characteristics –Device Information Block for Device Capabilities –Database and Unique Object Identifiers –Optional Error Logs for Record-level Error Codes –Detect Activity During Sync –Detect Device Reset