RE: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
Hi Kalyan,
Could you please clarify a few points for the proposal? I am trying to understand the proposal, and seems a bit lost (with the different MIHF-IDs :).
> In the present draft, it is discussed that the MIHF-ID is
> generated in some way or the other. What is, if we have
> an MIHF-ID (used within transport to show source/destination)
So, this is a new ID (different from what we have in the draft)? Lets call it nMIHF-ID.
A general question: Where exactly would the nMIHF-ID be used? In the transport protocol (e.g. L3 or L2 protocol, which is out of .21 scope and should be defined in either, e.g. MIPSHOP or TGu) or the MIH protocol?
> from which we can derive MIH function ID (a unique ID of the
> MIH function layer at a peer),
And, this is the MIHF-ID we have in the draft? .. so, I will call it oMIHF-ID.
> transport protocol ID and the user?
What is the "User"? Does this imply that some sort of "user"-level authentication is carried out? Why the User information is required in every message transported (other than the peer oMIHF-ID)?
And, how would this affect the user (location) privacy?
> This enables a received MIHF peer to know from which MIHF
> the message is received and over which protocol or interface
> technology.
The oMIHF-ID seems sufficient in providing the MIHF peer identity. I am not sure why the extra information about the protocol and interface in the nMIHF-ID is needed. This seems not a media independent way to go (at least MIHF should not know about it).
Also, the protocol or interface technology used for the transport would be known to the receiver MIHF. Why do we need the remote end MIHF to identify it through the nMIHF-ID? To me, it seems like a internal issue for the receiving end.
> This will allow us in transporting MIH packets (irrespective
> of registration or IS/ES/CS or some other content) over any
> interface and using any protocol and at the same time letting
> the MIH function at the Rx peer to know from which MIHF
> Tx the message is received.
Same as above, why with the current oMIHF-ID we cannot do that?
> Further, in case of sensible
> messages, even if same message is sent over different ways
> it can be still understood by Rx peer.
I assume this is about message duplication detection. Similarly, why a pair of peer oMIHF-IDs (source and dest MIHF-ID), with the Transaction ID, in current draft cannot achieve the purpose?
cheers
Cheng Hong
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On
> Behalf Of Kalyan Koora
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 11:52 PM
> To: Gupta, Vivek G; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: AW: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
>
> Hello All,
>
> after seeing this discussion, I feel that the concept which I
> discussed with couple of you seem to be applicable to solve the
> present discused problem. So, I just put into the group for
> discussion and see what you all feel about it.
>
> In the present draft, it is discussed that the MIHF-ID is
> generated in some way or the other. What is, if we have
> an MIHF-ID (used within transport to show source/destination)
> from which we can derive MIH function ID (a unique ID of the
> MIH function layer at a peer), transport protocol ID and the user?
> This enables a received MIHF peer to know from which MIHF
> the message is received and over which protocol or interface
> technology.
> This will allow us in transproting MIH packets (irrespective
> of registration or IS/ES/CS or some other content) over any
> interface and using any protocol and at the same time letting
> the MIH function at the Rx peer to know from which MIHF
> Tx the message is received. Further, in case of sensible
> messages, even if same message is sent over different ways
> it can be still understood by Rx peer.
>
> Regards,
> Kalyan
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Dezember 2005 16:11
> An: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Betreff: Re: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
>
>
> Srini,
>
> [1] Why don't we need registration for IS? Should the MIH enabled
> Information Service server start providing service to any UE without
> registration?
>
> [2] As for tying transport and MIH registration, in my view
> it does lead
> to less complex implementations. Mixing and matching transport and
> different services may lead to additional complexity without any undue
> benefits.
> For example if communication and registration has been
> established using
> L2 and if you are accessing a set of services using L2, and if
> suddenly/in between the MIH PoS starts sending some of the
> messages over
> L3, the client may have difficulty in dealing with it.
> Why would one want to do MIH registration using one transport and then
> use MIH services over another transport?
>
> Best Regards
> -Vivek
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com
> > [mailto:Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 2:09 PM
> > To: Gupta, Vivek G; reijo.salminen@seesta.com;
> > benjamin.kohtm@SG.PANASONIC.COM; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> > Subject: RE: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
> >
> > Vivek and Reijo,
> > There is a common understanding that the registration for IS may not
> be
> > feasible. So far the focus has been only on ES/CS. Do you see the
> > benefit of tying the transport to the MIH registration?
> >
> > My understanding was to have a transport independent framework for
> this
> > concept. One could use any transport as long as the credentials/ids
> are
> > same. Then the question is could one have multiple sets of
> credentials
> > that can be used to do multiple registrations between two peers?
> > Possible, but what is the benefit? Another question to ask - Are we
> > talking about multiple registration between two MIH peers?
> Or multiple
> > registrations to the network involving MIH in STA to multiple MIH
> > entities in the network? If latter, we need some coordination among
> the
> > involved MIH network entities or else it may be conflicting.
> >
> > In the end, it is possible to do it if we have some concrete use
> cases.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Srini
> >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: ext Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@intel.com]
> > >Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 6:04 AM
> > >To: Reijo Salminen; Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-NRC/Dallas);
> > >benjamin.kohtm@SG.PANASONIC.COM; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> > >Subject: RE: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
> > >
> > >
> > >One reason I can think of for multiple registrations between
> > >two MIH peers is if they end up using multiple (different)
> > >transports. For example if two MIH peers were using say L3 for
> > >IS and say L2 for ES/CS, quite likely you may need multiple
> > >registrations.
> > >
> > >BR,
> > >-Vivek
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On
> > >Behalf Of
> > >> Reijo Salminen
> > >> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 12:06 AM
> > >> To: Srinivas.Sreemanthula@NOKIA.COM;
> > >benjamin.kohtm@SG.PANASONIC.COM;
> > >> STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> > >> Subject: RE: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
> > >>
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> Comment on the multiple registrations, I think it would be useful
> for
> > >eg.
> > >> due to the mentioned bandwidth reasons. For example if for a
> roaming
> > >> subscriber there is frequent registrations/deregistrations due to
> > >changes
> > >> in
> > >> the access network (or if the operator of the access network has
> > >different
> > >> policies for MIH support at different parts of the access
> > >network). It
> > >> could ease the registration process if there could be several
> > >> registrations,
> > >and
> > >> they could be in different states.
> > >>
> > >> Comments?
> > >>
> > >> BR, Reijo
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On
> > >Behalf Of
> > >> Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com
> > >> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 12:33 AM
> > >> To: benjamin.kohtm@SG.PANASONIC.COM;
> STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> > >> Subject: RE: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
> > >>
> > >> Hi Benjamin,
> > >> I agree with you discovery will happen before as shown
> in the flow
> > >> diagram. That statement was specifically referring to ES/CS
> messages
> > >> after the discovery procedure. I will change the text to
> > >reflect this
> > >> comment.
> > >>
> > >> On the second issue, can you elaborate why one would
> need more than
> > >one
> > >> registration between two MIH peers? We discussed the
> need for only
> > >one.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Srini
> > >>
> > >> >-----Original Message-----
> > >> >From: ext Benjamin Koh [mailto:benjamin.kohtm@SG.PANASONIC.COM]
> > >> >Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 11:29 PM
> > >> >To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> > >> >Subject: Re: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
> > >> >
> > >> >Hi!
> > >> >
> > >> >Unfortunately I'll not be able to attend this teleconf,
> however I
> > >> >have some comments regarding the ES/CS registration.
> > >> >
> > >> >"MIH peers may not provide or accept MIH messages without an
> active
> > >> >registration session"
> > >> >While I'm not against having such a requirement, we should
> consider
> > >> >allowing some form of (limited?) query or discovery before
> > >> >registration.
> > >> > A scenario may be for the initiating node to first
> query and find
> > >> >out what are the available Event/Command Services
> before deciding
> > >> >whether or not to initiate the registration process
> (which may be
> > >> >expensive in terms of time, bandwidth and/or processing).
> > >This may be
> > >> >related to some aspects of ES/CS discovery.
> > >> >
> > >> >"Establishes a session setup and assigns an id"
> > >> >Does this imply that that multiple simultaneous sessions
> > >between the
> > >> >same two nodes may require multiple registrations?
> > >> >What is the scenario you have in mind for that?
> > >> >
> > >> >Regards,
> > >> >Ben
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >Srinivas Sreemanthula wrote:
> > >> >> Hello all,
> > >> >> Here is the slideset that is built on top of last meeting
> > >and some
> > >> >> email discussions. We can use these topics for open
> > >discussions and
> > >> >> draw some conclusions.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Regards,
> > >> >> Srini
> > >> >>
>