1. 21-07-xxxx-00-00001 IEEE 802.21 MEDIA INDEPENDENT HANDOVER DCN: 21-07-xxxx-00-0000 Title: Issues with Splitting HO Commands Date Submitted: January 11, 2007 Presented at IEEE 802.21 session in London, UK Authors or Source(s): Qiaobing Xie Abstract: This contribution discusses the issues associated with the previous decision of splitting MIH HO commands based on how they are sent.

2. 21-07-xxxx-00-00002 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 and in Understanding Patent Issues During IEEE Standards Development http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/guide.html> Section 6.3 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manualhttp://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3 http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/guide.html

3. 21-07-xxxx-00-00003  Splitting HO messages introduce massive changes to the draft spec  Wide-spread, touching sections 6, 7, 8, and Annexes  A lot of new text (new sections, new entries to tables), not a good thing at this stage of specification - we are aiming at SB in 03/2007 and our LB approval rating is still very low.

4. 21-07-xxxx-00-00004  “3GPP/2 name their messages differently when they are sent in different directions” is not a good justification because 3GPP/2 defines its own architecture while we don’t  Imposing architecture-assuming names to MIP messages (Net, MN, N2N) is a departure from our intention of making MIP protocol symmetric and architecture-agnostic.  Splitting MIH HO messages implies some architecture limitations to 802.21, which may not be what we wanted, e.g., what if in a few years we want to extend 802.21 to support mesh network model?

5. 21-07-xxxx-00-00005  Splitting HO messages creates inconsistency in our spec  There are other MIH messages (see Table 3/4) that can also be sent from Client->Net, Net->Client, or Net->Net, why they are not split?

6. 21-07-xxxx-00-00006  “Some parameters are only relevant/available when the message is sent from a certain place” is not a good justification  The parameter can be simply specified as an optional TLV and only included in the message when it is relevant and available.

7. 21-07-xxxx-00-00007 Proposal: Reverse the group decision on splitting MIH HO messages