| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
-----Original Message----- > >Besides that we should also discuss whether media-specific security >parameters should be defined in basic set or extended set. I
think >they should be defined in extended set in order to avoid definition
of >tons of media-specific TLVs in the 802.21 specification. > >[Vivek G Gupta] > >The network technology independent IEs are quite few. Based on
current >discussions we are left with: >{ Operator (that provides access to IS), List of Networks
Supported } > [Subir] I would say exactly the opposite.
Technology independent IEs will be larger than
technology dependent IEs. [Vivek G Gupta] As discussed this morning the values of many of these IEs
tend to be access network specific. However these IEs may not impact the access network
standards directly and so in that sense they may be access network independent. > >The values of most of other IEs are network technology dependent: >{ Operator, > Cipher_Suites, > Authentication_Methods, > Cost (free/not free), > List Of Roaming Partners (Agreements), > IP_Version, > Data_Rates (range), > QoS Supported, > Neighbor_Maps, > HLSI capabilities >} > [Subir] Operator (depends upon how we define), Cost,
IP-version, List of roaming partners, Neighbor-Maps
(depends upon how we define), HLSI capabilities all should be
under media independent list. [Vivek G Gupta] Again same comment as above applies. Cost, list of roaming
partners, HLSI may have values that are different for different access networks. > >In a very generic scenario the steps in querying information can be
as >follows: >Step 1: Query the list of networks in an area > This should be media indepenednt way >Step 2: Query set of properties (listed above) for each network. > This could be media independent way as well. >Step 3: Query specific neighbor reports and any other extended
detailed >information > This should be media specific way. > >>From a basic set perspective we just identify the key IEs that
need to >be supported by different network technologies. Their values are
likely >to be technology specific and hence it probably is not such a good
idea >to club them together etc. Clients could query these IEs for
specific >networks using common query mechanism and expect results in
consistent >format across different networks. The individual network standards
could >be amended so tat the 802.21 Info server (however it is deployed)
could >easily obtain the above parameters from different access networks. >Other IEs that need to be supported could be vendor/operator/ or
network >technology specific and we could just make a provision for their >transport. > >So not sure if we really need to get into basic/extended schema set
type >discussions and also of trying to collate values of different IEs
across >different network technologies. > [Subir] We need to definitely discuss this
after we agree upon the basic IEs. Defining them in the basic
and extended sets will give the vendor/operator felxible ways to add/define new IEs. > >Best Regards >-Vivek > > |