 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jak
James, I guess you meant MIH not MIS? Daniel: quote Analyzing pros and cons in each transport layer suggested by Betcet seems also too much wide in the PS document, rather describing those in a separated document as analysis or something like that if necessary later.
Well, there are many PS documents, the one I based my comment on was RFC 4093, it is structured as follows
-deployment scenarios for IP transport of MIH (could include the figures 1-5)
-problem statement could discuss IP transport problem and shortly cover proposals made so far including DHCP transport.
change the title and then remove all annexes.
My 2 cents.
--behcet
----- Original Message ----
From: James Kempf <kempf at docomolabs-usa.com>
To: Soohong Daniel Park <soohongp at gmail.com>; Robert Hancock <robert.hancock at roke.co.uk>
Cc: mipshop at ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:14:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] RE: Concerning mobility services transport PS
I agree with Daniel. I think the problem statement must focus specifically
on the problem defined in the paragaph he cited below from the charter,
namely transport of 802.21 MIS between the MIS server and host. The current
document could potentially be changed into an architectural document that
describes the MIS architecture and how 802.21 protocol implements it, and
where an IETF transport solution fits in.
jak
----- Original Message ----- From: "Soohong Daniel Park" <soohongp at gmail.com>
To: "Robert Hancock" <robert.hancock at roke.co.uk>
Cc: "Rahman, Akbar" <Akbar.Rahman at interdigital.com>; <mipshop at ietf.org>;
"James Kempf" <kempf at docomolabs-usa.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] RE: Concerning mobility services transport PS
Robert,
Here is a relevant sentence in the MIPSHOP charter:
=================== Additionally, the IEEE 802.21 Media Independent Handoff (MIH) working group aims at providing services to assist with handoffs between heterogeneous link-layer technologies, and across IP subnet boundaries. The information exchanges defined by IEEE 802.21 are classified as MI (Media Independent) Event Service (MIES), MI Command Service (MICS), and MI Information Service (MIIS). The MIIS provides topological and location-related information of service networks. The MIES provides timely communications of wireless environment information via the delivery of events originating across the link-layer or farther away. The MICS is an analogous service for commands which can change the state of the wireless link or of a host's point of attachment, potentially triggering further event generation. MIH services can be delivered through link-layer specific solutions and/or through a "layer 3 or above" protocol. MIPSHOP will define the delivery of information for MIH services for this latter case. Notice that this allows the network information to reside anywhere (not necessarily across the link-layer hop), and enables MIH services even in the absence of the corresponding link-layer support. An L2 or L3 based mechanism to identify a valid information server is also required; in particular for L3, we expect that any of the several current L3 discovery mechanisms will be used. A liaison with IEEE 802.21 has been established, and access to the IEEE 802.21 drafts is granted to mipshop members. Interested members need to send a request to the WG chairs in order to obtain a copy of the current IEEE 802.21 draft. ===================
"MIPSHOP will define the delivery of information for MIH services for this latter case. Obviously, MIH means IEEE 802.21 not *mobility service*. No doubt. Anything else ?
--
Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park) Mobile Convergence Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
<snip>
_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
_______________________________________________ Mipshop mailing list Mipshop at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop