Re: Comments on draft-irtf-mobopts-l2-abstractions-01 (was Re: [Mobopts] RG last call)

Hi Christian,

Thank you for you reply.
Please find my comment inline:

[snip]

>> Right.  Do you think the state is needed to be more clear?
>
> Yes, you could state this more clearly.  There is a similar  
> statement in the IEEE 802.21 specification which is that the  
> information provided by Media Independent Information Services is  
> relatively stable and does not change often.  See section 6.3.3,  
> Information Service Elements, of version 1.09 of the IEEE 802.21  
> specification.

OK.  Thank you for the information.

> The Link Going Down indication in IEEE 802.21 is not only used in  
> local cross-layer signaling within a mobile node, but also between  
> the mobile node and the network.  This is why IEEE 802.21 requires  
> the Link Going Down indication.
>
> But in your case, you do not specify any signaling between a mobile  
> node and the network.  So you could replace the Link Going Down  
> indication by periodic or on-demand link status reports which  
> notify an interested upper-layer protocol of link status changes.   
> The advantage of this would be that you eliminate the single  
> anticipatory indication in your proposal.
>
> In contrast to Link Going Down indications, simple link status  
> reports don't suggest anything to the mobile node about when to do  
> the next handoff.  So they are not anticipatory.  It is then the  
> responsibility of the upper-layer protocol do decide when to switch  
> to a different link.
>

OK, I see you point.
We have such on-demand link status report by L2-LinkStatus.
And the LinkGoingDown is also needed to let several entities behave  
in the same way.

regards,
Koshiro

> <snip>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> - Christian
>
> -- 
> Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH)
> www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/

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