AW: [802.21] IS Higher Layer Transport Requirements: update on conf call on December 8
Hi Vivek, Stefano and all,
at first it is not clear to me the purpose of discussing IS IE's for
the higher layer requirements, as I think this is the payload of MIH packet
and the payload is independent of transport mechanism. May be I can
understand this well in todays telconf.
Regarding security things, I feel it should be set as a requirement
for the transport layer.
Regarding the TLV representation, I am not sure whether I have sent
my comments previously, I will do it now.
- Having a Tag value of 2 Bytes is more than sufficient, I find it good.
- The coding of the Tag values is not completely clear to me. May be I am
missing some explanation.
In the second row (section 2.2) you say all are core .21 specific and
in the next rows you say vendor specific.
- for what purpose couple of types reserved for IETF is not clear to me.
As far as I can see, we are discussing in IETF higher layer transport
for MIH, so are we also aiming to assign Type values specific to transport?
- I feel, it is good to specify a Tag value range for basic "Standardised"
.21 information elements. Actually, you have already started with them
(# operators, # PoAs, Qos, Cost, etc.) All these have encoding vlaues of
0x10 || (24 bits) --> MIH basic IEs (should be standardised)
- Do you mean with Length = variable, that the size of this field can be
extended depending on the information sent (like in .16)?
I find, having a Length field of 2 Bytes is, in most cases, more than enough.
i.e., 1 Byte can server the purpose in most of the cases.
With best regards,
Kalyan
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@INTEL.COM]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Dezember 2005 04:19
An: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Betreff: Re: [802.21] IS Higher Layer Transport Requirements: update on conf call on December 8
Please find attached updated document for discussion on IEs and their representation. The initial contributions on set of IEs have already been included in draft. However we need to agree on their representation (how to represent Link Type, Operator Identifier, etc.).
Also please take a look at different report formats defined in section 4. Time permitting we may take a look at these as well.
Best Regards
-Vivek
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
> stefano.faccin@nokia.com
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 5:21 PM
> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: [802.21] IS Higher Layer Transport Requirements: update on
conf
> call on December 8
>
> Updated agenda:
> Agenda:
> 1) review of requirements produced at ad-hoc meeting
> in November - 30 min
> doc. 21-05-0441-00-0000-IS_Ad Hoc.ppt
> 2) review of discussion on IETF involvement - 30 min
> doc. 21-05-0408-00-0000-IETFInvolvment.ppt
> No conclusions were reached in Vancouver (based
> on 21-05-0451-00-0000-802_MIHS_minutes_2005_11_14.doc).
> Way forward?
> 3) IEs and their representation (Vivek Gupta) - 30 min
>
>
========================================================================
> ==================
>
> Conference details:
> US dial-in: +1 972 894 6500
>
> Conference ID: 57113
>
> PIN: 53187