802.19.1 Reference Model Proposal May 2010 doc.: IEEE 802.11-yy/xxxxr0 July 2010 802.19.1 Reference Model Proposal Date: 2010-07-13 Authors: Notice: This document has been prepared to assist IEEE 802.19. 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. Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital) Tuncer Baykas, NICT

July 2010 Abstract We present a simple reference model for 802.19.1 that easily captures the richness of the agreed-on architecture Additionally, we use our model to demonstrate synergies between 802.19.1 and 802.21 Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)

Overview: Architecture We Agreed On July 2010 Overview: Architecture We Agreed On Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)

SAP Needs in This Architecture July 2010 SAP Needs in This Architecture Identify 2 Major SAP Needs Transport for information between physically distant components Communication between CE and MAC/PHY in the device Inter-device SAP Needs to support interfaces B1, B2, B3, C, D Transport means needs to be defined when this is needed SAP to MAC/PHY Supports interface A Needs to be address specifics of each MAC/PHY Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)

Reference Model: Centralized Configuration July 2010 Reference Model: Centralized Configuration Notes: Centralized configuration: CM’s interface to each other through CDIS TVCOEX_MNET_SAP Supports Interfaces B1, B2, C, D TVCOEX_LINK_SAP Supports Interface A This SAP needs to capture dependency on specific MACs Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)

Reference Model: Distributed Configuration July 2010 Reference Model: Distributed Configuration Notes: Distributed: CMs interface to each other directly (no CDIS) TVCOEX_MNET_SAP supports Interface B1, B3, C, D Easily coexists with centralized config for a hybrid approach It just gets a bit messy to show Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)

TVCOEX_MNET_SAP: L2 / L3 Transport July 2010 TVCOEX_MNET_SAP: L2 / L3 Transport Information from TVCOEX_MNET_SAP would need to be transported by a L2 or L3 protocol L2 transport Can be used for intra-domain communications Potentially requires changes in the different MACs (i.e. definition of new management frames) L3 transport Can be used for inter and intra-domain communications Becomes a data frame for L2 (i.e. no MAC changes are needed) Conclusion L3 transport is preferred when SAP is over an interface between different physical devices For example, do not need to use this for B1 when CM and CE are on the same device In fact in this case do not need to specify transport at all (up to device implementation) Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)

TVCOEX_LINK_SAP: Addressing Media Dependence July 2010 TVCOEX_LINK_SAP: Addressing Media Dependence Media Dependence on MAC/PHY can present a major challenge May require us to develop a separate design for each MAC/PHY Requires liasing and time commitment Can easily date the standard Desired approach Just like we could rely on an already defined transport means for TVCOEX_MNET_SAP, we would like to find a ready-made solution to this problem 802.21 presents such a solution Re-use the media-interaction components of 802.21 Drop any unnecessary services associated with Handover Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)

A possible solution July 2010 Higher Layers (TCP/IP) Link Layers TVCOEX Function Higher Layers (TCP/IP) TVCOEX_MNET_SAP e.g. RFC5677 MIH (802.21) TVCOEX_LINK_SAP Link Layers (802.11, 802.16, 802.22) MIH_LINK_SAP Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)

July 2010 Conclusions We presented a simple reference model that can easily address the multiple configuration supported by our architecture We discussed proposed a solutions to the difficult problems by utilizing developed and proven solutions We suggest 802.19.1 adopt the approach proposed here Alex Reznik, et. al. (InterDigital)