Re: [802.21] SAP semantics
Hi Ajay,
This is an interesting point.
I agree that the quoted text seems incorrect and should be corrected.
When MIHF entity sends commands to another remote MIHF entity, I think
that no existing SAP can be used. On the other hand, we can argue
whether a new SAP is needed to cover this part or leave it open to
implementations. Is that part something similar to standard socket
calls?
Yoshihiro Ohba
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 03:40:51PM -0400, Ajay Rajkumar wrote:
> Hong-Yon,
>
> I agree that SAP is defined to provide an abstraction between a service provider entity and a user entity.
>
> Also, MIH protocol would be used to provide communication between the two MIHF entities.
>
> The problem arises from the current text in the draft in Section 5.6
>
> "Upper layers may directly send commands to MIHF. Similarly MIHF entity may also
> send commands to another remote (peer) MIHF entity. Primitives corresponding to all these services
> described above are within the scope of MIH_SAP."
>
> This implies that MIH_SAP is being used both by the MIH User as well as MIHF to communicate with the remote entity, which is my view is incorrect.
>
> Regards,
> -ajay
>