RE: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
Vivek and Reijo,
There is a common understanding that the registration for IS may not be
feasible. So far the focus has been only on ES/CS. Do you see the
benefit of tying the transport to the MIH registration?
My understanding was to have a transport independent framework for this
concept. One could use any transport as long as the credentials/ids are
same. Then the question is could one have multiple sets of credentials
that can be used to do multiple registrations between two peers?
Possible, but what is the benefit? Another question to ask - Are we
talking about multiple registration between two MIH peers? Or multiple
registrations to the network involving MIH in STA to multiple MIH
entities in the network? If latter, we need some coordination among the
involved MIH network entities or else it may be conflicting.
In the end, it is possible to do it if we have some concrete use cases.
Regards,
Srini
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@intel.com]
>Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 6:04 AM
>To: Reijo Salminen; Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-NRC/Dallas);
>benjamin.kohtm@SG.PANASONIC.COM; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: RE: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
>
>
>One reason I can think of for multiple registrations between
>two MIH peers is if they end up using multiple (different)
>transports. For example if two MIH peers were using say L3 for
>IS and say L2 for ES/CS, quite likely you may need multiple
>registrations.
>
>BR,
>-Vivek
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On
>Behalf Of
>> Reijo Salminen
>> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 12:06 AM
>> To: Srinivas.Sreemanthula@NOKIA.COM;
>benjamin.kohtm@SG.PANASONIC.COM;
>> STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: RE: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Comment on the multiple registrations, I think it would be useful for
>eg.
>> due to the mentioned bandwidth reasons. For example if for a roaming
>> subscriber there is frequent registrations/deregistrations due to
>changes
>> in
>> the access network (or if the operator of the access network has
>different
>> policies for MIH support at different parts of the access
>network). It
>> could ease the registration process if there could be several
>> registrations,
>and
>> they could be in different states.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> BR, Reijo
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On
>Behalf Of
>> Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com
>> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 12:33 AM
>> To: benjamin.kohtm@SG.PANASONIC.COM; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: RE: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
>>
>> Hi Benjamin,
>> I agree with you discovery will happen before as shown in the flow
>> diagram. That statement was specifically referring to ES/CS messages
>> after the discovery procedure. I will change the text to
>reflect this
>> comment.
>>
>> On the second issue, can you elaborate why one would need more than
>one
>> registration between two MIH peers? We discussed the need for only
>one.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Srini
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: ext Benjamin Koh [mailto:benjamin.kohtm@SG.PANASONIC.COM]
>> >Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 11:29 PM
>> >To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> >Subject: Re: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
>> >
>> >Hi!
>> >
>> >Unfortunately I'll not be able to attend this teleconf, however I
>> >have some comments regarding the ES/CS registration.
>> >
>> >"MIH peers may not provide or accept MIH messages without an active
>> >registration session"
>> >While I'm not against having such a requirement, we should consider
>> >allowing some form of (limited?) query or discovery before
>> >registration.
>> > A scenario may be for the initiating node to first query and find
>> >out what are the available Event/Command Services before deciding
>> >whether or not to initiate the registration process (which may be
>> >expensive in terms of time, bandwidth and/or processing).
>This may be
>> >related to some aspects of ES/CS discovery.
>> >
>> >"Establishes a session setup and assigns an id"
>> >Does this imply that that multiple simultaneous sessions
>between the
>> >same two nodes may require multiple registrations?
>> >What is the scenario you have in mind for that?
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >Ben
>> >
>> >
>> >Srinivas Sreemanthula wrote:
>> >> Hello all,
>> >> Here is the slideset that is built on top of last meeting
>and some
>> >> email discussions. We can use these topics for open
>discussions and
>> >> draw some conclusions.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Srini
>> >>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: ext Srinivas Sreemanthula
>> >>> [mailto:Srinivas.Sreemanthula@Nokia.com]
>> >>> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 3:09 PM
>> >>> To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>> >>> Subject: Re: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
>> >>>
>> >>> Hello,
>> >>> Here is telecon bridge info for Dec 13th 9am-11am EST about
>> >>> L3 ES/CS requirements. An agenda will follow soon.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> Srini
>> >>>
>> >>> US Phone Number: 972-894-6500
>> >>> EU Phone Number: +358 7180 71870
>> >>> Conference ID: 37494, PIN: 561988
>> >>> Type of reservation: Single reservation: 13.12.2005
>> >>> (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada) Number of
>> >>> participants: 20 Instructions language: English
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ________________________________
>> >>>
>> >>> From: ext Ajay Rajkumar [mailto:ajayrajkumar@lucent.com]
>> >>>
>> >>> Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 7:22 AM
>> >>> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> >>> Subject: [802.21] Ad hoc telecons for the next
>> >two months
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> *
>> >>> Hi everyone,
>> >>>
>> >>> The external meeting documents server has been
>> >updated and synced.
>> >>> At the end of the just concluded Vancouver session the
>> >working group
>> >>> approved a set of telecon for the next two months.
>> >>>
>> >>> Here is the schedule of these telecons again.
>> >>> Please note that all times are from 9-11 am EST, which was
>> >acceptable
>> >>> to all and seems to be most suitable time for all time zones
>> >>> concerned.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> *
>> >>> *IS Higher Layer Transport Requirements
>> >>> December 8, 2005
>> >>> - January 10, 2006
>> >>>
>> >>> *ES/CS Higher Layer Transport Discussion
>> >>> - November 29, 2005
>> >>> - December 13, 2005
>> >>> - January 12, 2006
>> >>>
>> >>> *802.11 Requirements
>> >>> - January 5, 2006
>> >>> *
>> >>> 802.16 Requirements
>> >>> -December 15, 2005
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> The telecon bridge number and codes would be
>> >announced closer to
>> >>> the respective telecon dates.
>> >>>
>> >>> Best Regards,
>> >>> -ajay
>> >>>
>> >>> Ajay Rajkumar
>> >>> Chair, IEEE 802.21 WG
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>