Re: [Mobopts] Re: draft-irtf-mobopts-l2-abstractions-04.txt comments

Rajeev Koodli kirjoitti:
>
> Hi Jari,
>
> could we close this one? We could then send the revised ID for
> publication.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Rajeev
>
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2008 7:32 AM, Fumio Teraoka <tera@ics.keio.ac.jp
> <mailto:tera@ics.keio.ac.jp>> wrote:
>
>     Jari,
>
>     Thanks for comments. Replies are inline:
>
>     At 08/01/09 15:36 +0200, Jari Arkko wrote:
>     (snip)
>
>     >> We modified the document as follows:
>     >>
>     >> - Sec. 4.5 L2-LinkUp (Type 2):
>     >>   - old: The L2-LinkUp.indication primitive is asynchronously
>     provided to
>     >>          an upper layer when a new link is connected.
>     >>
>     >>   - new: The L2-LinkUp.indication primitive is asynchronously
>     provided to
>     >>          an upper layer when a new link is connected and IP
>     packets can be
>     >>          transmitted through the new link. As described in RFC
>     4957[7],
>     >>          what "link is connected" means depends on link types.
>     >
>     >Good.
>     >
>     >>  For example,
>     >>          in case of the infrastructure mode in IEEE802.11
>     (WiFi), this
>     >>          primitive is provided when an association to an access
>     point is
>     >>          established.
>     >>
>     >
>     >Really? I was under the impression that association was an early
>     phase
>     >and you would need to wait for something else if security was
>     applied. I
>     >could be mistaken, but this discussion is an example of the sort of
>     >detail level that a fully defined interface would have to go to.
>
>     In my understanding of the IEEE802.11 infrastructure mode, at first,
>     a mobile node is in Unauthenticated & Unassociated State. Next,
>     the mobile node is authenticated and then the state changes to
>     Authenticated & Unassociated State. Finally, an association is
>     established with the AP and then the state changes to Authenticated
>     and Associated state. Thus, we defined that L2-LinkUp is provided
>     when an association is established in WiFi.
>

OK

>
>     (snip)
>
>     >> The quality levels of a device are independent of those of
>     other devices.
>     >> We added sentences at the last of "Sec. 6.2 Condition" as follows:
>     >>
>     >>   The quality levels of a L2 device are independent of those of
>     other
>     >>   devices.  An example of the thresholds among the five levels
>     are described
>     >>   in Appendix E.
>     >>
>     >> We also added the description about the example thresholds in
>     Appendix E.
>     >>
>     >
>     >The added text is good, but I'm still not convinced that you have a
>     >generic solution capable of operating in different conditions. It
>     might
>     >be more useful to simply acknowledge that making decisions based on
>     >these metrics is error prone and not guaranteed to result in optimal
>     >choice of links.
>
>     I agree that "decisions based on these metrics is error prone and
>     not guaranteed to result in optimal choice of links."
>     I'll attend this sentence at the last of "6.2 Condition".
>

OK


jari
>
>
>     (snip)
>
>     Best Regards,
>
>     Fumio Teraoka
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Mobopts mailing list
>     Mobopts@irtf.org <mailto:Mobopts@irtf.org>
>     https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts
>
>


_______________________________________________
Mobopts mailing list
Mobopts@irtf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mobopts