An issue regarding primitives!
while going through the draft, couple of questions raised
in my mind which I would like to discuss with you all.
General Primitive Syntax
The general syntax of the primitives described in draft for ES and CS
contain a source ID and an Information/Result set.
=> What I miss here is destination ID (there are couple of advantages
with this, will explain in next point).
If you check the MIH-Poll, which is listed as MIH Command, then the
primitive described for it is having a source and destination ID.
This is in discrepancy with the general primitive syntax for command
Couple of advantages in having both the IDs
* Having both the IDs (source & destination) in a primitive will reduce
the overhead of defining a same event/command once as local and
once as remote. I think, this is also pointed by couple of us.
* That is, all the events going from L2 to MIH and from MIH to HL are
treated as local events. And at the same time, all the commands going
from HL to MIH and MIH to L2 are treated as local commands.
* MIHF decides on receiving the events/commands from other layers,
depending on the destination ID, to treat them either as local
or remote events/commands. It then forwards them to local receiver
or to remote MIHF with the help of external transport protocol.
NOTE: The remote events/commands are exchanged ONLY between the
MIHF peers and not between the other layers.
I would like to know your opinions.
with best regards,
The opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of BenQ Corporation and its affiliates. BenQ Corporation is not responsible for any liability or damaged caused by viruses transmitted with this e-mail or its attachments. If this e-mail is not originally intended for you, or received by you in error, do not disclose its content to anyone and delete it immediately. This e-mail may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure.