RE: [802.21] MIH Protocol message naming
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gupta, Vivek G [mailto:vivek.g.gupta@intel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:34 PM
> To: zze-Seamless PERESSE M ext RD-RESA-REN; Junghoon Jee;
> STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: RE: [802.21] MIH Protocol message naming
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On
> Behalf Of
> > zze- Seamless PERESSE M ext RD-RESA-REN
> > Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 4:58 AM
> > 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.
> >
> > 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).
> [Vivek G Gupta]
> MIH protocol shall only use MIH messages and not Link layers
> messages (since link layer messages shall be local only).
> There is a lot of similarity in naming between Table-8 and
> Table-13 in the draft (SAP primitives and actual MIH
> messages) which may not be a bad thing.
The issue is not whether this is bad or good.
Clearly representing the MIH protocol messages not to be confused with
local primitives needs to be done.
--Junghoon
> Once the actual message headers, transport options/formats
> and message structure is settled, this shall become clearer.
> A lot of this should get addressed in next meeting.
>
> >
> >
> > 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