RE: [802.21] Ad hoc telecon for Dec 13th
HI Vivek,
We had the common IS use cases in mind so we concluded it may not be
needed. I can take an example and get your opinions on this. If the STA
is now in some radio network and want to query information over L2 from
a visible WLAN network, do you want the STA to first perform MIH
registration before providing IS? Also we said that this could be in
state 1, so the MIH registration cannot be secure.
On the second issue, currently MIH services can be intermixed on various
transports. Like IS for L2 and ES/CS for L3 or viceversa. IMO, MIH
registration would be the same transport as ES/CS services. The issue
was related to multiple registrations based on transport. Do you see
that ES/CS can be provided at both L2 and L3 in the same network? I can
understand for different networks, it is upto the STA to decide which
network ES/CS control it prefers and accordingly maintain a registration
(one). If two were active in different networks, the STA can report
events to both but can receive commands from only one.
Regards,
Srini
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@intel.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 9:11 AM
>To: Sreemanthula Srinivas (Nokia-NRC/Dallas);
>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
>
>
>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
>> >> >>
>