答复: [802.21] MIH Protocol Message Naming Issue
Hi Srini and all,
I suggest to add MIH_N2N_HO_Candidate_Commit.request/response, it has
benefits without any negative effect.
Best Regards,
Junxiang Guo
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Srinivas Sreemanthula [mailto:Srinivas.Sreemanthula@NOKIA.COM]
发送时间: 2007年3月9日 10:05
收件人: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
主题: 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