1. IEEE 802.21 MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN:21-05-0379-00-0000
Title: Communication Model Ad Hoc Meeting Report
Date Submitted: September 22, 2005
Presented at IEEE session #10, Orange County, California
Authors : Qiaobing Xie
Sources: Ad hoc meeting.
Abstract: This is a summary of the discussion happened at the Ad hoc meeting over the communication model. This was held in the morning of 9/21/2005.

2. IEEE 802.21 presentation release statements
This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE 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
The contributor is familiar with IEEE patent policy, as outlined in Section 6.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual < and in Understanding Patent Issues During IEEE Standards Development

3. Summary of discussion on the issue
Issues raised
Summary of discussion on the issue
Conclusion
1. Do we need to discuss PoA definition first?
Maybe that’s for another ad hoc. PoA definition is an issue beyond the comm. model discussion.
Agreed.
2. The current diagram implies an MIH will always be located on the serving PoA. That is too restrictive.
The model at this level does not intend to impose any restriction to MIH location. It is only meant to show all the possible ways of MIH communications. (Some still feel that the diagram seems to imply MIH location on PoAs.)
No conclusion
3. Suggested to change to a more abstracted model that only shows a UE MIH and a network MIH.
But this will be too abstract to keep the usefulness of the diagram.
4. Suggested to remove “PoA” from the diagram and use only serving MIH, candidate MIH, and Network MIH.
Then how to distinguish a serving MIH and a network MIH? Some suggestions were given on how a serving MIH might differ from a network MIH. Moreover, if “PoA” concept is removed from the diagram, it becomes no different from simply showing a UE MIH, MIH-A, MIH-B, MIH-C. But how useful that would be?
5. Adding another NE MIH to the diagram and showing the comm btw the 1st NE MIH and the 2nd NE MIH
Seems a good idea to cover the proxy-server architecture of the IS service.
Seems acceptable.
The meeting ended when the time ran out without reaching a conclusion on how the diagram should be modified.