RE: [802.21] MIH Protocol Message Naming Issue
Hi Junghoon,
We had discussed this some time ago. The use of it, if any, is based on
assumptions on when the mn originated handover commit is sent to the
network and can be redundant. E.g. MN could have already activated the
target link at the time. There is no mantory requirement for handover
commit from MN (after cand query), it may not happen. I see a benefit in
the model where the target network comes to know of HO from the MN as a
process of connecting to the target link. For network initiated case, we
had issues with sequencing if the second commit (between mn and target)
fails and how we should resolve it. Unless we have a strong reason and
use case, we should avoid defining new messages, functionality and fail
over cases.
Regards,
Srini
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Junghoon Jee [mailto:jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 7:48 PM
To: STDS-802-21@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802.21] MIH Protocol Message Naming Issue
Hi Srini again,
Originally, I questioned about the missing
MIH_*N2N*_HO_Candidate_**Commit** from the Serving PoS and Target PoS.
This has a role of the final indication of the MN's movement from the
Serving PoS to the Target PoS.
Thoughts?
Junghoon
----- Original Message -----
From: <Srinivas.Sreemanthula@nokia.com>
To: <jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR>; <STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 9:34 PM
Subject: RE: [802.21] MIH Protocol Message Naming Issue
Hi Junghoon,
We use MIH_N2N_HO_Query_resources for that.
Regards,
Srini
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Junghoon Jee [mailto:jhjee@ETRI.RE.KR]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 1:45 AM
To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
Subject: [802.21] MIH Protocol Message Naming Issue
Hi all,
There is a missing protocol message and its corresponding primitive from
the current MIH protocol messages and primtives.
In my understanding, the use of second word in the MIH Protocol and
primitive was to denote the direction of them, like from MN to PoS,
between PoSs and from PoS and MN.
The current rule is like below:
1. "MN" to denote that this message is originated from MN toward PoS.
2. "Net" to denote that this message is originated from PoS toward MN.
3. "N2N" to denote that this message is exchanged between PoSs.
For an example, the word of "MN" from MIH_"MN"_HO_Candidate Query
Request is to denote that this message is originated from MN toward the
Serving PoS.
However, currently we do not define the MIH_N2N_HO_Candidate_Query
Request/Response even though that message is exchanged between Serving
PoS and Target PoS.
Moreover, the MIH_Network_Address_Information does not follow this rule.
Any thoughts?
Junghoon