Hello Pete,
I am in agreement with Yoshi on all of these points. They should be
reflected in the next revision of the proposal.
Would you be willing to review the diagrams and make suggestions about
how they might be clearer? It seems to me that the differences
between the various scenarios could be highlighted somehow, or
irrelevant detail omitted, so that the main points are easier to grasp.
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 7/2/2012 4:39 PM, Yoshihiro Ohba wrote:
Hi Pete,
Thank you very much for reviewing the document.
Please see my comments below.
(2012/07/03 4:55), Peter McCann wrote:
Hi,
I had promised to send some review comments on this document.
In Section 3, the acronym "MN" is expanded to mean "Mobile Network."
I think
you meant, "Mobile Node?"
I think it should be "Mobile Node".
After reviewing the base 802.21 specification, I think the use of
the primitives
is mostly correct; however, some of the description in the text is a
bit wrong.
For example, you say in Section 7.4.29.1.1 that the function of the
MIH_LL_Transfer.request primitive is to carry link-layer frames
between the MN and the serving PoS. This is incorrect. It only
carries the link-layer frames between the MIH user and the MIHF. It
is the corresponding message in Section 8.6.3.24 that actually carries
the frames to the new PoS via the existing network. This message is
generated by the MIHF after receiving an invocation of the
MIH_LL_Transfer.request primitive from the MIH user.
You are right. I think Section 7.4.29.1.1 has to be revised as you
pointed out.
In Section 7.4.29.1.3: you say that the primitive is generated by an
MIH user
to start an authentication and association process based on
link-layer frames.
Do you really need to be so specific? This is a general- purpose
primitive for
sending link-layer frames for any purpose whatsoever, isn't it?
AFAIK, the discussed use of the primitive is pre-registration, and
sending link-layer frames for any purpose using this primitive has not
been discussed. If we expand the usage to allow sending any LL frame
then the text should be revised. But we need to agree on expanding
the usage first.
Section 7.4.29.1.4: you say the MIH_LL_Transfer.indication is used
by a remote
MIHF. I don't think you need to specify that it is a "remote" MIHF.
You just
need to say that it is used by an MIHF to notify the local MIH user
about the
receipt of an MIH_LL_Transfer request message.
I agree. The text needs to be revised as you suggested.
I do not think you need to specify the corresponding .response and
.confirm messages. The transfer of a link-layer frame is a one-way,
unreliable operation that does not always generate a response.
Specifying a .response just seems redundant; the MIH user that
receives an .indication can always generate a brand new .request
primitive to transfer a link layer frame in the other direction.
The reason for having .response and .confirm primitives in
MIH_LL_Transfer is basically inherited from 802.21a MIH_LL_Auth.
I would say the design depends on whether the use of MIH_LL_Transfer
is for pre-registration only or for carrying any link-layer frame.
Similarly, I think you can do away with the
MIH_N2N_LL_Transfer.response and
.confirm primitives.
Again the design depends on whether the use of MIH_LL_Transfer
is for pre-registration only or for carrying any link-layer frame.
Best Regards,
Yoshihiro Ohba