RE: [802.21] Transport protocol issue!
Kalyan,
Thanks for the clarification. I believe we should strive for transparency of the transport protocol, i.e. the MIHF does not know which one is used.
Stefano
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Kalyan Koora [mailto:kalyan.koora@benq.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:25 AM
>To: Faccin Stefano (Nokia-NRC/Dallas); STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Subject: AW: [802.21] Transport protocol issue!
>
>Hi Stefano,
>
>with #2 I mean, whether the MIHF should know how the transport
>protocol is constructed.
>
>If the answer is yes, then we have some sort of dependency.
>Example, a change in transport protocol (from its standard)
>needs a change in the MIHF, at the minimum from implementation
>point of view.
>
>regards,
>Kalyan
>
>
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: Stefano M. Faccin [mailto:stefano.faccin@NOKIA.COM]
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 24. Januar 2006 15:05
>An: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
>Betreff: Re: [802.21] Transport protocol issue!
>
>
>Kalyan,
>Can you elaborate a bit more on #2?
>Stefano
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ext Kalyan Koora [mailto:kalyan.koora@BENQ.COM]
>>Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:23 AM
>>To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>>Subject: [802.21] Transport protocol issue!
>>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>while going through the present draft, couple of questions
>>arised where I would like to hear to the experts opinions.
>>
>>Considering: Communication between 2 MIHF peers using MIHF protocol
>> with an arbitrary transport protocol.
>>
>>1. Should the MIHF know over which transport protocol messages are
>> exchanged?
>>
>>2. Should MIHF be in a position to dissect the transport protocol?
>> (if yes, then do we have transport protocol dependency?)
>>
>>3. Is PPP also a possible transport protocol for MIHF communication?
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>Kalyan
>>
>