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

RE: [802.21] MIH Protocol message naming

Hi Junghoon,

I agree with your statement. I guess MIH Function Message should simply not have a "primitive like" naming scheme, since it is confusing. 

However, these messages will be transmitted using other media specific primitives: for example, in 16g (if I understood correctly), 4 primitives (section 6.3.2.3 in the 16g draft) are used to transmit and receive MIH messages (1 Request and 1 Response in both directions). Another example: for 11 and 3 we can use LLC primitives to send MIH message over the data plane. For L3 transport, I guess MIH messages can be transported using an implementation specific access point (e.g. socket), since their is no such thing as a SAP within IETF.

I think we should separate interactions that deal with the local MIH message passing (i.e. MIH_X primitives that MIH users will use and Link_X primitives the MIH Function will use) from the interactions that deal with the MIH message transport (i.e. Media (or Transport) Specific facilities the MIH Function will use to transport MIH messages).


Regards,

Mathieu

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Junghoon Jee [mailto:jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR] 
Envoyé : mercredi 4 janvier 2006 14:34
À : STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Objet : [802.21] MIH Protocol message naming

Hello,

Currently, MIH protocol messages have a very similar naming scheme with MIH SAP primitives, like MIH_X_Y.request/response.

Don't we have to define a separate naming scheme for MIH protocol messages?

Regards,
Junghoon