AW: [802.21] AW: [802.21] Tomorrow's Telecon material
Hello Subir & Ajoy,
i would just like to clarify my concern on this matter:
- if we are including an optional "ACK" facility in MIHF protocol
are we covering "ALL" reliability issues?
For me transporting the packet in time, retransmission ambiguity
and message integrity (CRC) are also points for reliability.
If I'm wrong pls. correct me.
- it is not clear to me yet, what impact is going to come
on MIHF protocol, if we include ACK as optional:
+ what type of timing issues are to considered between
sending a MIHF packet and waiting for an ACK (pointed
out in last teleconf)?
+ whether CRC is to be included into the message at MIHF
protocol level so that the receiver sends an ACK?
+ what state machines are to be included in the MIHF at
the sender of a request and also caching of requests
(though it is an implementation issue, impact is on
MIHF)?
+ Does MIHF should know in advance about the transport
protocol prior to deciding about wheter or not to use
ACK?
=> if answer to this is yes, then I feel, there is
a potential to simplify the MIHF protocol further.
Then it is clear to me that MIHF is the entity which
is selecting the protocol (Q: on what basis?) So
we are indirectly inducing some decision mechanism
into MIHF.
=> if answer is no, how does MIHF set this optional
ACK request?
May be I missed something in understanding the use of optional
ACK within MIHF protocol.
Regards,
Kalyan
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1 [mailto:ASINGH1@MOTOROLA.COM]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2006 17:06
An: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Betreff: Re: [802.21] AW: [802.21] Tomorrow's Telecon material
Hi, Subir,
Sorry, due to some conflict, I could not attend today's meeting. Btw, I am not sure why we will need to have reliability in transport layer if reliability is already included as part of MIH protocol. I guess adding reliability at two different layers would make the protocol heavy weight. However, I do agree that
we may need to debate this little more before we can conclude anything.
Regards,
Ajoy
-----Original Message-----
From: Subir Das [mailto:subir@RESEARCH.TELCORDIA.COM]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 7:59 AM
To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: Re: [802.21] AW: [802.21] Tomorrow's Telecon material
Kalyan,
We are debating on this issue. Since we are discussing ACK in MIH protocol,
additional reliability requirement may not be necessary. However, we
need to
discuss it further.
regards,
-Subir
Kalyan Koora wrote:
>Hi Subir,
>
>just a quick comment, reliability is not put as an IS requirement
>on transport protocol. Is there any reason for this?
>
>regards,
>Kalyan
>
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: Subir Das [mailto:subir@RESEARCH.TELCORDIA.COM]
>Gesendet: Donnerstag, 23. Februar 2006 02:14
>An: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>Betreff: [802.21] Tomorrow's Telecon material
>
>
>Pl. find the document for tomorrow's telecon. We will discuss the
>slides. Also attaching
>a drafty draft. Folks are working on it. The IETF draft submission
>deadline is on March 6,
>9:00 EST. Hopefully we will have a stable version by then.
>
>Regards,
>-Subir
>
>