Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Nov 29th


> [Stefano] Perhaps the sentence should be read in his 
> entirety. Sorry for not being clear, let me rephrase it: I 
> was referring to 802.21 @ L3 and having the discovery of MIH 
> functions built into the MIH protocol wrt having the MIH 
> protocol separate from the use of an IP mechanism to discover 
> MIH. I do not believe that from an IETF point of view it 
> makes sense to have the discovery of MIH functions built into 
> the MIH protocol. The reason is that:
> > >That is the equivalent of telling IETF that for the MIH 
> > >specific purposes we are not using any of the proven existing 
> > >discovery solutions designed in IETF and we're introducing 
> a new one. 

So are you suggesting that two MIH discovery protocols?
One is standardized in IEEE 802.21 WG. The other is standardized in
I am sure this is the right way to proceed.

> >=> Is there any discovery protocol defined in IETF which fits 
> >the purpose of MIH capability discovery? Absolutely not! 
> [Stefano] I guess there is a study somewhere proving that? It 
> would be good to see the results to support this statement.
> >We 
> >did not introduce and do not introduce and will not introduce 
> >any protocol which needs be standardized in IETF regarding MIH 
> >protocol itself. We are here in IEEE 802.21. :-) 
> [Stefano] Let me try to put it in a different way: for 802.21 
> @ L3, are we relying on the expertise of IETF in discovery of 
> an IP function (the MIH), or have we defined our own 
> solution? My understanding is that by building the discovery 
> into the protocol we have decided not to rely on the surely 
> larger expertise of IETF in this field. As for existing 
> protocols, I can easily see either DNS or SLP used for the 
> discovery, without any particular modifications by just a 
> smart adoption.
> >As a side 
> >note: There is no work item for capability discovery in the 
> >current IETF MIPSHOP charter.
> [Stefano] that is correct. However, this does not stop IETF 
> from working on the discovery aspects in other WGs. E.g. 
> MIPSHOP could ask another IETF WG to help with the discovery 
> aspects since MIPSHOP has decided to not cover that aspect.
> > Aside from the on-going 
> >discussions, what do you expect by including a requirement 
> >about MIP capability discovery in the requirement documents of 
> >MIH info/command/event services? Are you intending to re-try 
> >including this MIH capability discovery to the **future** 
> >MIPSHOP charter?
> [Stefano] definitely not. 
> > Or do you believe that the work of MIH 
> >Capability Discovery is already included in MIH event, command 
> >and information support items of MIPSHOP? 
> [Stefano] it is not, but that does not mean it cannot be done 
> somewhere else in IETF as needed.

Is there any WG to take care of MIH related works without MIPSHOP?