Subject: RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21

From: "Hancock, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:14:23 +0100

hi alper,

that seems like a simple question, but actually I am not sure that it
is.

- i had always understood that ES/CS/IS were fundamentally
differentiated from each other by their different roles in the .21
architecture, rather than their message transport requirements. so it
might be dangerous at this stage to hard-code assumptions about those
requirements into the protocol design. for example, suppose in the
future that there is a value in sending a large message (e.g. with a
couple of certificates or something) from the CS node in the network; it
would be bad if the protocol architecture forced that such messages
could only come from the IS node.

- if you want to use different transports for different services, then
you quite likely end up with parallel discovery mechanisms. conversely,
as was discussed in the last meeting, the model of MIH services being
used by .21 is that that server capabilities are negotiated in-band
after initial discovery - but then one has another question about what
are the tranport requirements for those negotiation messages themselves,
which are not ES/IS/CS at all. 

i'm hoping that the problem statement will cover the overall transport
requirements for all the MIH services, and also the meta-requirement
that different services may have different needs which have to be
accommodated efficiently. however, i'm not sure that it is a good idea
to split the problem up too rigidly at this point.

cheers,

robert h.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alper Yegin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 03 August 2006 21:11
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21
> 
> 
> 
> Question: which one(s) of the MIH protocols are we 
> considering GIST for?
> (ES, CS, IS)?
> 
> Alper
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 8:44 AM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> > [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Cc: [email-masked]
> > Subject: RE: [Mipshop] GIST for 802.21
> > 
> > Junghoon,
> > 
> > >From the explanation about the GIST by John, I can not find
> > >any clear issue/obstacle about the possibility in utilizing
> > >the GIST for the transporting the MIH protocol under
> > >considering the MIH communication model.
> > >I might give more detailed feedback about the considerable
> > >points in adopting GIST for MIH transport after further
> > >exploring the GIST world.
> > 
> > Great - let us know.  Also, as an FYI - GIST is in IETF last call,
> > if anyone wants to send comments, please do so. Either post them
> > to the NSIS list or send them to Robert / myself.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > John
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mipshop mailing list
> > [email-masked]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop
> 

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 15:34:09 +0300

Hi Robert,

> architecture, 

I think so too.

> rather than their message transport requirements. so it

I think the transport requirements (whatever they end up to be) would be
affected by your former point.

> could only come from the IS node.

I'm hoping we can clearly separate configuration and information delivery
(IS) from ES and CS. Maybe we should look at some scenarios.

> you quite likely end up with parallel discovery mechanisms. 

I'm not sure if different transports imply different discovery mechanisms. I
think this has to do more with the location of the end-points, irrespective
of the protocols used to reach them. For example, depending on the discovery
mechanism, even if the transports and the server nodes are different, same
discovery mechanism may be able to help.

> conversely,
> accommodated efficiently. 

I agree. I've looked at the .21 requirements document and found it to be
"too high level." It does not answer many questions, and now we need to take
it from there.......

> however, i'm not sure that it is a good idea

I agree. But in fact I was not asking for that. I was just asking, now that
people are also proposing GIST for 802.21, I was wondering what parts of the
.21 problem space they think GIST should be used.

Regards,

Alper

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 01:50:43 -0400

Hi Robert and Alper,

> which are not ES/IS/CS at all. 

As a result of 802.21 Letter Ballot #1 comment resolution, capability
discovery messages which belong to "System Manegement" category in
802.21/D01 will belong to "Command Service" category in the next
version.

Yoshihiro Ohba