Subject: [MIPSHOP-MIH-DT] [Fwd: Re: [Mipshop] Confirmation of adoption of draft-melia-mipshop-mstp-solution-01 as a WG document]

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:21:20 -0800

You guys need to respond to this email.

Vijay

Subject: Re: [Mipshop] Confirmation of adoption of draft-melia-mipshop-mstp-solution-01 as a WG document
From: Hong Cheng <[email-masked]>
To: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Cc: "'Mipshop'" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:36:52 +0800

Dear all,

I think this document is a good start for the MIH support. However, I
would like to clarify a few things with the design:

- First of all, this should not be called a protocol design. Rather, it
is more of a framework design, as there is no new protocol defined here.

- Why the IS, ES, CS need to have different ports defined? Why can't the
transport multiplex the support of different services? Especially for
the ES and CS, why a MN needs to create two separate transport sessions
even if the peer MIHF is the same?

- If MIHF peer discovery is anyway required, as suggested in the
document using DHCP or DNS, why the document defined the fixed port
numbers for the different services? Shouldn't this also be included in
the discovery mechanism? It would allow a much more flexible deployment.
At least, it should allow those ports to be override by information from
DHCP or DNS.

- For the MIH services, the security aspect is important, especially for
the CS. This document only talks about the TLS/DTLS for the transport.
How about the other aspects, e.g. the authentication of the MIHF peer?
Shouldn't this also be covered (SR2 from the problem statement)?

cheers

Cheng Hong

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> At the MIPSHOP WG meeting on December 5, there was consensus in the
> room to adopt draft-melia-mipshop-mstp-solution-01 as a WG document.
> 
> This email is to confirm adopting this document as a WG document,
> since all decisions taken in the face to face meeting need to be
> confirmed on the mailing list. If anyone has objections or thinks
> that this document still needs some work before it can be adopted
> as a WG document, please send an email to the mailing list before
> Dec 14th.
> 
> If you weren't at the meeting and agree with adopting this document,
> please send an email supporting adopting the document.
> 
> Vijay (for the chairs)
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
MIPSHOP-MIH-DT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop-mih-dt