RE: [802.21] Telecon on source/destination Ids within different primitives
Hi Wolfgang,
Sorry I would not be able to make it for the conference next week. But, please consider my opinions below as part of your discussion. The issue must be narrowed down to either i) MIH packet or ii) SAP definitions. My opinions are related to SAP defitions, for MIH packet we already have those fields defined.
1. MIH discovery mechanisms are performed by the MIH function layer and hence part of MIH layer.
2. MIH peer information is not made available(as per current mechanisms) to the upper or lower layers of MIH.
3. MIH registration (in the future) will also be part of MIH function which provided MIH pairing information (not provided to other layers)
4. The most suitable layer/part of the stack having the knowledge of the MIH peer is the MIH layer itself.
5. In this regard, the upper and lower layers only need to mention local or remote scope in the SAP definition and the MIH will make routing decisions about the destination for remote communication.
6. I take the same position with regards to the transport option (l2 or l3) as well. The decision is upto MIH (this change was approved in Kona meeting).
Regards,
Srini
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Wolfgang Gröting [mailto:wolfgang.groeting@BENQ.COM]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 6:39 PM
>To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>Subject: [802.21] Telecon on source/destination Ids within
>different primitives
>
>Dear all,
>
> as agreed within the meeting, I suggest to have a telecon on
>the above mentioned issue next week. I will provide telecon
>details later on.
>
>Aim is to clarify the value of having source / destination Ids
>within particular commands and events.
>
>Cheers,
>Wolfgang.
>