Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.21] [FW: connection bet. action ID and TLV type value]



Hi, Kenichi,

Kenichi Taniuchi wrote:
> Another question is like that the TLV can not have
> 3rd level of nested TLVs.
> Because the 3rd level of Type value starts from 301 but the value range
> is from 0 to 255. So far MIH protocol has at most 2nd level of nested TLVs,
> right ? That's why still it's survived.

Of cause you don't have to start with 301; you can in fact just start
with 0 for *any* level of nested TLVs without ambiguity.

regards,
-Qiaobing

> In the fixed type value case, the number of TLV is less than 255.
> So I don't see any problem with fixed type value. And also it's possible
> not to think about the ordering of TLVs using fixed Type value if each
> parameter
> has a Type (e.g. Old Link ID TLV, Current Link ID TLV, New Link ID TLV).
> 
> Kenichi
> 
> Gupta, Vivek G wrote:
>>   
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: stds-802-21@ieee.org [mailto:stds-802-21@ieee.org] On Behalf Of
>>> Qiaobing Xie
>>> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 10:09 PM
>>> To: Kenichi Taniuchi
>>> Cc: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>>> Subject: Re: [802.21] [FW: connection bet. action ID and TLV type
>>>     
>> value]
>>   
>>> Kenichi/Mac,
>>>
>>> In terms of implementation, I've heard a lot of people saying that
>>>     
>> they
>>   
>>> feel this way is much clearer and less confusing and not hard to code
>>>     
>> at
>>   
>>> all. I think all of this is a just a matter of personal preference for
>>> individual programmers.
>>>
>>> The only technical difference is that the previous approach allows 256
>>> number space for parameters for the entire protocol and the new
>>>     
>> approach
>>   
>>> allows 256 number space for parameters for each message.
>>>     
>> [Vivek G Gupta] 
>> And if you have multiple parameters of same Type in a particular
>> message, this method makes it convenient to assign different Type values
>> (which lie within the context of that message only) and thus leads to
>> lesser confusion, as opposed to having to impose additional rules
>> regarding order of these parameters.
>>
>>   
>>> regards,
>>> -Qiaobing
>>>
>>> Kenichi Taniuchi wrote:
>>>     
>>>> I also support static value of type.
>>>> Dinamic value of type increases implementation cost,
>>>> debuging cost and confusions. I don't see any benefit for using
>>>> it so far.
>>>>
>>>> Kenichi
>>>>
>>>> Meylemans, Marc wrote:
>>>>       
>>>>> Personally I would prefer seeing 'static' TLV types assigned to
>>>>>         
>> these
>>   
>>>>> parameters, so that these TLV type values do not change when used
>>>>>         
>> with
>>   
>>>>> the same parameters but in different messages.
>>>>> I would think that this makes implementation more
>>>>>         
>> straightforward...
>>   
>>>>> My 2 cents,
>>>>> -Marc
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Miriam Tauil [mailto:miriam@RESEARCH.TELCORDIA.COM]
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:11 PM
>>>>> To: STDS-802-21@listserv.ieee.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [802.21] [FW: connection bet. action ID and TLV type
>>>>>         
>>> value]
>>>     
>>>>> I'm referring to the message parameters. The same parameter in
>>>>>         
>>> different
>>>     
>>>>> messages can have a different TLV type.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>           
>