From: Peretz Feder
[mailto:pfeder@lucent.com]
Sent: Monday, December 26, 2005
9:33 PM
To: Gupta,
Vivek G
Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802.21] Ad hoc
telecon for Dec 13th
Happy new year dear MIHers:
The IS discussions consistently (over many sessions) ignore that fact that IS
servers belong to service providers. I yet to see a business case of a wireless
user who is not identified with a service provider at any given point of
connection. Yes, it could be different service provider at every connection
instance. Even low cost WLAN hotspots ask a user to register first (and
sometime pay). Once registered through hot spots/cellular service
provider, a user will have access to the service provider IS. On behalf of the
user, the provider's IS server may query info from IS servers of other
providers, but this is now SLA territory which
is no different than any other SLAs agreements (example V-AAA to H-AAA).
If you to wear a deployment scenario goggles, I believe most will agree that IS
registration is not required, it is implied when the MIH service is available.
so to the question:
[1] Why don't we need registration for IS? Should the MIH enabled
Information Service server start providing service to any UE without
registration?
I say yes, if you are connected to a MIH enabled service provider
(hence registered or authenticated by it), it better provides you access to its
IS server, otherwise why bother to become a MIH compatible provider?
[Vivek G Gupta]
We may need to clarify what is meant by MIH registration
here. If you are already connected to a MIH enabled service provider (hence registered
and authenticated by it) then you certainly don’t need another level
of MIH registration.
Peretz Feder
On 12/21/2005 10:10 AM, Gupta, Vivek G
wrote:
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