Re: Re: [802.21] [FW: connection bet. action ID and TLV type value]
Hi,
Traditionally, these two mechanisms do work and be adopted by differnet SDOs.
In 3GPP/3GPP2, the same parameter in different messages can have the same TLV type, which would be convenient for implementation but unconvenient for standard development. In IEEE802.16, uniqueness is needed in message scope, which means the same parameter may have different TLV type in different message.
To keep consistency with IEEE802.16, the latter is better.
B.R
Yan
>------------Original Message------------
>From: Qiaobing Xie [mailto:Qiaobing.Xie@MOTOROLA.COM]
>Sent: 2007-04-26 15:21:00
>To: STDS-802-21 [STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org]
>Subject: Re: [802.21] [FW: connection bet. action ID and TLV type value]
>Hi, Miriam,
>
>Miriam Tauil wrote:
>> I'm referring to the message parameters. The same parameter in different
>> messages can have a different TLV type.
>
>This is based on the group decision of comments 3363 and 4396. In 4396,
>the resolution includes "The Type values for each identifier are
>assigned in the message description for each message. Do this for all
>MIH Protocol messages and all MIH Protocol TLVs." 3363 accept-modify
>contribution 21-07-0022-00-0000-MIH-message-new-form, which discusses
>some advantage of defining parameter TLV within the corresponding message.
>
>Essentially, the TLV type values now are assigned *within* each
>message. This means that a) the same TLV may be assigned a different
>value when it appears in different messages, and b) a particular value
>may be used for different TLV in different message.
>
>regards,
>-Qiaobing
>
>>
>> I hope this clarifies my question.
>> Thanks
>>
>> Miriam
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Qiaobing Xie [mailto:Qiaobing.Xie@MOTOROLA.COM]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:37 PM
>> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>> Subject: Re: [802.21] [FW: connection bet. action ID and TLV type value]
>>
>> Hello Miriam,
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I was wondering if anybody can point me to the comment resolution or
>>> contribution that led to the change in assignment of the different TLV
>> type
>>> values. I would be interested to look into the considerations for this
>>> change.
>>
>> Which TLV values are you referring to here (we have IE types, message
>> parameter types, etc.)?
>>
>> regards,
>> -Qiaobing
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Miriam
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>>>
>>
>>
-----------------------------------------
**********************************************************************
This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from
HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address
is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way
(including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure,reproduction,
or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient(s) is
prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
**********************************************************************