RE: [802.21] Discussion thread for MIHF ID
Qiaobing,
> Qiaobing wrote:
If the MN is deployed to work among those networks, the MIHF_ID given to
the MN should be unique in that operating scope. This is just like there
is a "Starz Alliance" which contains a list of airlines, and members of
the alliance can enjoy some benefits from all participating airlines.
When you become a member of "Starz Alliance", you get a user ID; This ID
needs to unique only within the "Starz Alliance". To me, arguing for a
globally unique MIHF_ID is equal to arguing for a globally unique
frequent flier numbering system - Sure, it will work but it is just
totally unnecessary.
I think you are flying too much these days.
The thing is, that the MN should NOT be 'given' an MIHFID. The MN should
(re)use one of the identities it has. Since different protocols in the
MN already require some sort of identity be constructed for a number of
reasons, the MN can simply re-use any of those. Since most of the
identities are anyway (globally) unique, the simpliest way is to say to
use one of the available global identifiers, without requiring the MN to
construct yet another one. Of course it doesn't have to be globally
unique in all cases, but uniqueness may be required in some scenarios.
What makes even less sense is to require the MN to construct an
identifier with local scope when it has a bunch of globally unique
identifiers available. We tend to overspecify things and the MIHFID
doesn't seem to be an exeption ...
And it is 'Star Alliance', without the 'z' in it :)
- gabor