RE: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yoshihiro Ohba [mailto:yohba@tari.toshiba.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 8:09 PM
> To: Gupta, Vivek G
> Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
>
> On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 02:00:49AM -0800, Gupta, Vivek G wrote:
> > I agree with Cheng Hong here. The peer MIHF entities only need to
know
> about each other. MIHF within a MN/UE can be made responsible for
> dispatching MIHF related messages (even those received from remote
MIHF
> entities) to different local MIH Users within a MN/UE.
> >
> > Any thoughts on what the MIHF Identifier should be? (New unique
> identifier, L2/L3 address, etc...?)
> > Should this be part of the MIH Function protocol (as shown in
current
> draft) or is this likely to be specified as part of transport specific
> header as well and so is not required in MIHF header?
>
> If the MIHF Identifier is L2/L3 address it should be part of transport
> specific header not in the MIHF header. I see no reason for the MIHF
> Identifier to be something other than L2/L3 address while I think some
> additional identifier may be needed in the MIH header if there are
> multiple simultaneous MIH sessions between a pair of communicating
> MIHFs.
>
[Vivek G Gupta]
Yoshi, I agree.
MIHF identifier is more of a MIHF session identifier.
The transport header should take care of appropriate L2/L3 address as
well as identifying appropriate MIH port type (or MIHF identifier) for
dispatching within a node.
Best Regards
-Vivek