RE: [802.21] IS Higher Layer Transport Requirements: update on conf call on December 8
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kalyan Koora [mailto:kalyan.koora@benq.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:15 AM
> To: Gupta, Vivek G; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: 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.
[Vivek G Gupta]
Maybe we should *NOT* discuss this as part of this telecon to avoid any
confusion with higher layer requirements. Since you missed the Vancouver
meeting you seem to be missing other context here as well. There are no
transport/security implications here. We just need to define
representation of different IEs. (We can just concentrate on section 1
for today,(30 mins))
>
> 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.
[Vivek G Gupta]
You mean the *Type* value. Would still prefer 4 bytes here as there
could be large number of Vendor specific IEs.
>
> - 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.
[Vivek G Gupta]
This was again discussed briefly in Vancouver meeting and we probably
need to update the document to capture all that discussion. Apart from
802.21 other SDOs may also want to define IEs and hence a Range was
allocated for that. Also Vendor specific IEs would also need a range.
>
> - 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?
>
[Vivek G Gupta]
Just in case IETF (and other SDOs) want to define any IEs as well that
could be used as part of 802.21 server.
> - 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)
>
[Vivek G Gupta]
Yes. That's what this is doing.
If we don't need anything more than this, that's fine as well.
> - Do you mean with Length = variable, that the size of this field can
be
> extended depending on the information sent (like in .16)?
[Vivek G Gupta]
Yes
> 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.
>
[Vivek G Gupta]
1 byte is definitely inadequate. We can go with 2.
>
> With best regards,
> Kalyan
>