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

Re: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th

Title:
Happy new year dear MIHers:

The IS discussions consistently (over many sessions) ignore that fact that IS servers belong to service providers. I yet to see a business case of a wireless user who is not identified with a service provider at any given point of connection. Yes, it could be different service provider at every connection instance. Even low cost WLAN hotspots ask a user to register first (and sometime pay).  Once registered through hot spots/cellular service provider, a user will have access to the service provider IS. On behalf of the user, the provider's IS server may query info from IS servers of other providers, but this is now SLA territory which is no different than any other SLAs agreements (example V-AAA to H-AAA).

If you to wear a deployment scenario goggles, I believe most will agree that IS registration is not required, it is implied when the MIH service is available.

so to the question:

[1] Why don't we need registration for IS? Should the MIH enabled
Information Service server start providing service to any UE without
registration?
I say yes, if you are connected to a MIH enabled service provider (hence registered or authenticated by it), it better provides you access to its IS server, otherwise why bother to become a MIH compatible provider?

Peretz Feder

On 12/21/2005 10:10 AM, Gupta, Vivek G wrote:
Srini,

[1] Why don't we need registration for IS? Should the MIH enabled
Information Service server start providing service to any UE without
registration?

[2] As for tying transport and MIH registration, in my view it does lead
to less complex implementations. Mixing and matching transport and
different services may lead to additional complexity without any undue
benefits.
For example if communication and registration has been established using
L2 and if you are accessing a set of services using L2, and if
suddenly/in between the MIH PoS starts sending some of the messages over
L3, the client may have difficulty in dealing with it.
Why would one want to do MIH registration using one transport and then
use MIH services over another transport?

Best Regards
-Vivek

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com
[mailto:Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com]
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 2:09 PM
To: Gupta, Vivek G; reijo.salminen@seesta.com;
benjamin.kohtm@SG.PANASONIC.COM; STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: 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