Re: [STDS-802-21] Inconsistency in 802.21(c) parameters -- please take a look
(2012/08/08 5:01), Cypher, David E. wrote:
> Charles,
>
> I do not have 802.21c in front of me, but …
>
> The original formatting for 802.21 was that the parameters list of a
> primitive contains all of the parameters that could be included, as
> well as in the tables following the parameter list explains when and
> or if the parameter is included.
>
> When it came to the actual message format it had to include also all
> of the fields that could be part of the message and within that field
> (mark as optional)
>
> There should be no inconsistency between the primitive parameters list
> and the message fields (as you appear to be pointing out). That is
> there shall be a one for one match between the primitive list,
> primitive table, and message format.
There are two exceptions in 802.21-2008 on this. Source Identifier
TLV will be automatically inserted by the MIHF of the source of a
message, but a SourceIdentifier parameter is not included in the
primitive (such as .request and .response) invoked by an MIH user when
sending the message. Similarly, Destination Identifier TLV will not
be included in the primitive (such as .indication and .confirm) that
will be invoked by an MIHF when it receives a message.
Having said that, in 802.21c case, I see no consistency between
MIH_LL_Transfer.request primitive and MIH_LL_Transfer request message.
BTW, there is another exception in 802.21a-2012. MIH_Auth messages
used for MIH service access authentication are exchanged between peer
MIHFs without invoking any primitive.
Yoshihiro Ohba
>
> I am not commenting on whether source address is required or not in
> order to remover the inconsistency.
>
> David Cypher
>
> *From:*Charles E. Perkins [mailto:charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 07, 2012 3:30 PM
> *To:* STDS-802-21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [STDS-802-21] Inconsistency in 802.21(c) parameters --
> please take a look
>
>
> Hello folks,
>
> I am noticing various inconsistencies, which mostly I
> can fix. But here is an example where I am not so sure.
>
> For instance in section 7.4.29.1.2:
>
>
> 1.1.1.1.1Semantics of service primitive
>
> MIH_LL_Transfer.request
>
> includes:
>
> DestinationIdentifier,
>
> TargetLinkIdentifier,
>
> LLInformation,
>
> TMGWIdentifier,
>
> CandidateLinkList
>
>
> But section 8.6.3.24 calls also for
> a "Source Identifier". I think this can be argued
> both ways, but the Source Identifier is unlikely
> to be absolutely required and so I could omit it.
>
> Comments, please?
>