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

RE: [802.21] MIH Protocol message naming



Hi Mathieu,
Thanks for your feedback.
Please find my inline replies.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: zze-Seamless PERESSE M ext RD-RESA-REN 
> [mailto:mperesse.ext@rd.francetelecom.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 9:58 PM
> To: Junghoon Jee; STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: RE: [802.21] MIH Protocol message naming
> 
> 
> Hi Junghoon,
> 
> I agree with your statement. I guess MIH Function Message 
> should simply not have a "primitive like" naming scheme, 
> since it is confusing. 

Yes, this is the reason why I think modification is required.

> 
> However, these messages will be transmitted using other media 
> specific primitives: for example, in 16g (if I understood 
> correctly), 4 primitives (section 6.3.2.3 in the 16g draft) 
> are used to transmit and receive MIH messages (1 Request and 
> 1 Response in both directions). Another example: for 11 and 3 
> we can use LLC primitives to send MIH message over the data 
> plane. For L3 transport, I guess MIH messages can be 
> transported using an implementation specific access point 
> (e.g. socket), since their is no such thing as a SAP within IETF.


> I think we should separate interactions that deal with the 
> local MIH message passing (i.e. MIH_X primitives that MIH 
> users will use and Link_X primitives the MIH Function will 
> use) from the interactions that deal with the MIH message 
> transport (i.e. Media (or Transport) Specific facilities the 
> MIH Function will use to transport MIH messages).

Yes, you're right.
Obviously, we need to clearly denote what is local 'primitive' and
what is remote 'protocol' message exchange.

Thanks,
Junghoon


> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mathieu
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Junghoon Jee [mailto:jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR] Envoyé : mercredi 
> 4 janvier 2006 14:34 À : STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Objet 
> : [802.21] MIH Protocol message naming
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Currently, MIH protocol messages have a very similar naming 
> scheme with MIH SAP primitives, like MIH_X_Y.request/response.
> 
> Don't we have to define a separate naming scheme for MIH 
> protocol messages?
> 
> Regards,
> Junghoon