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

Re: [802.21] HLSI



Gupta, Vivek G wrote:

>-----Original Message-----
>From: stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>[mailto:stds-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Yoshihiro Ohba
>Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 9:42 AM
>To: Subir Das
>Cc: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: Re: [802.21] HLSI
>
>The currently defined Cipher Suites and Authentication Method are too
>802.11 specific, and not useful information for other media.  I think
>what we actually need in basic set is more generic security and qos
>suites like Jesse Walker prensented a couple of meetings before (is
>there updated information about Jesse's work?).  We can have
>placeholder Security and QoS IEs at this moment, and continue the work
>of defining their contents for a few months.
>
>Besides that we should also discuss whether media-specific security
>parameters should be defined in basic set or extended set.  I think
>they should be defined in extended set in order to avoid definition of
>tons of media-specific TLVs in the 802.21 specification.
>
>[Vivek G Gupta] 
>
>The network technology independent IEs are quite few. Based on current
>discussions we are left with:
>{ Operator (that provides access to IS),  List of Networks Supported }
>
    [Subir]  I would say exactly the opposite.  Technology independent 
IEs will be larger than 
                technology  dependent  IEs.

>
>The values of most of other IEs are network technology dependent:
>{ Operator,
>  Cipher_Suites, 
>  Authentication_Methods, 
>  Cost (free/not free), 
>  List Of Roaming Partners (Agreements),
>  IP_Version, 
>  Data_Rates (range), 
>  QoS Supported, 
>  Neighbor_Maps,
>  HLSI capabilities 
>}
>
 [Subir]  Operator (depends upon how we define), Cost, IP-version, List 
of roaming partners, 
             Neighbor-Maps (depends upon how we define), HLSI 
capabilities all should be
             under media independent list.

>
>In a very generic scenario the steps in querying information can be as
>follows:
>Step 1: Query the list of networks in an area 
>
    This should be media indepenednt way

>Step 2: Query set of properties (listed above) for each network.
>
    This could be  media independent way as well.

>Step 3: Query specific neighbor reports and any other extended detailed
>information 
>
     This  should be media specific way.

>
>>From a basic set perspective we just identify the key IEs that need to
>be supported by different network technologies. Their values are likely
>to be technology specific and hence it probably is not such a good idea
>to club them together etc. Clients could query these IEs for specific
>networks using common query mechanism and expect results in consistent
>format across different networks. The individual network standards could
>be amended so tat the 802.21 Info server (however it is deployed) could
>easily obtain the above parameters from different access networks.
>Other IEs that need to be supported could be vendor/operator/ or network
>technology specific and we could just make a provision for their
>transport.
>
>So not sure if we really need to get into basic/extended schema set type
>discussions and also of trying to collate values of different IEs across
>different network technologies. 
>
  [Subir]   We need to definitely  discuss this after we agree upon the 
basic IEs. Defining them in the basic
                and  extended sets  will give  the  vendor/operator  
felxible ways to add/define  new IEs. 


>
>Best Regards
>-Vivek
>  
>