Re: [DMM] MNID Types
I think updating RFC4283 is probably not an option. That will impact lot of existing specs. My preference is for defining explicit type value in MN-ID for different RFID types and DHCP DUID types; Still keep the RFC4283 option format. Ex: Subtype 4: DUID-LLT Subtype 5: DUID-UUID Subtype 6: RFID-GLN-66 … … Regards Sri From: "Charles E. Perkins" mailto:charl...@computer.org>> Organization: Blue Skies Date: Thursday, September 25, 2014 10:46 PM To: Hakima Chaouchi mailto:hakima.chaou...@telecom-sudparis.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>> Cc: Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello folks, Now we have two kinds of identifiers that could reasonably be grouped as a type plus subtypes. I could specify this by writing another section of the new draft that lays out another subtype field after the MNID subtype field from 4283. I guess it would be a "subsubtype" field if we are following the nomenclature for the fields as shown in RFC 4283. Or, alternatively, I could specify that for some types (e.g., DUID and RFID), the first eight bits of the identifier is the a field that we might call the "identifier subtype". Maybe that is cleaner. A third option would be to update RFC 4283, but that seems to be a bit heavy-handed. Comments? Or other options? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/25/2014 9:31 PM, Hakima Chaouchi wrote: Hi, For RFID we refer to the EPC standards. "The Electronic Product Code (EPC) is an identification scheme for universally identifying physical objects by using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags. The standardized EPC tag encoding consists of an EPC Identifier that uniquely identifies an individual object, and may also include a filter value if the filter is needed to enable effective and efficient reading of the EPC tags. The EPC Identifier is a meta-coding scheme designed to support the needs of various industries by accommodating existing coding schemes where possible and by defining new schemes where necessary." "EPC supports several encoding systems or schemes including GID (Global Identifier), SGTIN (Serialized Global Trade Item Number), SSCC (Serial Shipping Container), GLN (Global Location Number), GRAI (Global Returnable Asset Identifier), DOD (Department of Defense) and GIAI (Global Individual Asset Identifier). For each scheme except GID, there are two variations—a 64-bit scheme (for example, GLN-64) and a 96-bit scheme (GLN-96). GID has only a 96-bit scheme. Within each scheme, an EPC identifier can be represented in a binary form or other forms such as URI ..etc". May be we need some subtyping. Cheers, Hakima De: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <mailto:sgund...@cisco.com> À: "Charles E. Perkins" <mailto:charl...@computer.org> Cc: "Vijay Devarapalli" <mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>, dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org> Envoyé: Vendredi 26 Septembre 2014 03:36:01 Objet: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hi Charlie, > Is the DoD-96 identifier for a special kind of RFID, or is it valid for all > the RFID devices that would be of interest? I do not know the answer for this question. I assumed DOD-96 is a mandated standard for RFID encoding, but looks like there are other formats like GID-96 ..etc. May be this may end up needing subtypes. We can defer this question to Hakima and learn some details on this, she seems to have written many books on RFID. Regards Sri From: "Charles E. Perkins" mailto:charl...@computer.org>> Organization: Blue Skies Date: Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:42 PM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> Cc: "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Sri, Is the DoD-96 identifier for a special kind of RFID, or is it valid for all the RFID devices that would be of interest? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/21/2014 9:59 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Hi Hakima, That is a good idea. We should register a type for the Dod-96 identifier as well. Regards Sri From: Hakima Chaouchi mailto:hakima.chaou...@telecom-sudparis.eu>> Date: Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:11 AM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> Cc: Charlie Perkins mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Folks, Do you think that considering specific but needed technologies for moving objects in Internet of Things such as RFID (Radio Frequency Identifier) with 96 bits identifiers will be also relevent
Re: [DMM] MNID Types
Thanks. Thinking about this further, having the RFID subtype is probably going to be extremely useful for IOT applications. A MAG/MR can potentially register devices identified with RFID as the NAI; Also, there seems to be some mapping between 64-bit EPC and IPv6 Identifier, allowing device addressability over IPv6 and that makes this interesting and enable some new use-cases. Regards Sri From: Hakima Chaouchi mailto:hakima.chaou...@telecom-sudparis.eu>> Date: Thursday, September 25, 2014 9:31 PM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> Cc: "Charles E. Perkins" mailto:charl...@computer.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hi, For RFID we refer to the EPC standards. "The Electronic Product Code (EPC) is an identification scheme for universally identifying physical objects by using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags. The standardized EPC tag encoding consists of an EPC Identifier that uniquely identifies an individual object, and may also include a filter value if the filter is needed to enable effective and efficient reading of the EPC tags. The EPC Identifier is a meta-coding scheme designed to support the needs of various industries by accommodating existing coding schemes where possible and by defining new schemes where necessary." "EPC supports several encoding systems or schemes including GID (Global Identifier), SGTIN (Serialized Global Trade Item Number), SSCC (Serial Shipping Container), GLN (Global Location Number), GRAI (Global Returnable Asset Identifier), DOD (Department of Defense) and GIAI (Global Individual Asset Identifier). For each scheme except GID, there are two variations—a 64-bit scheme (for example, GLN-64) and a 96-bit scheme (GLN-96). GID has only a 96-bit scheme. Within each scheme, an EPC identifier can be represented in a binary form or other forms such as URI ..etc". May be we need some subtyping. Cheers, Hakima De: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> À: "Charles E. Perkins" mailto:charl...@computer.org>> Cc: "Vijay Devarapalli" mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>>, dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org> Envoyé: Vendredi 26 Septembre 2014 03:36:01 Objet: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hi Charlie, > Is the DoD-96 identifier for a special kind of RFID, or is it valid for all > the RFID devices that would be of interest? I do not know the answer for this question. I assumed DOD-96 is a mandated standard for RFID encoding, but looks like there are other formats like GID-96 ..etc. May be this may end up needing subtypes. We can defer this question to Hakima and learn some details on this, she seems to have written many books on RFID. Regards Sri From: "Charles E. Perkins" mailto:charl...@computer.org>> Organization: Blue Skies Date: Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:42 PM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> Cc: "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Sri, Is the DoD-96 identifier for a special kind of RFID, or is it valid for all the RFID devices that would be of interest? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/21/2014 9:59 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Hi Hakima, That is a good idea. We should register a type for the Dod-96 identifier as well. Regards Sri From: Hakima Chaouchi mailto:hakima.chaou...@telecom-sudparis.eu>> Date: Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:11 AM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> Cc: Charlie Perkins mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Folks, Do you think that considering specific but needed technologies for moving objects in Internet of Things such as RFID (Radio Frequency Identifier) with 96 bits identifiers will be also relevent to Charlie's current draft and the efforts related to MNID? Regards, Hakima De: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> À: "Charlie Perkins" mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, "Marco Liebsch" mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>, "Vijay Devarapalli" mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Envoyé: Jeudi 11 Septembre 2014 23:57:11 Objet: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hi Charlie, Few more reviews/discussions and capturing the consensus in the base version will help. But, I'm ok either way … Regards Sri From: Charl
Re: [DMM] MNID Types
Hello folks, Now we have two kinds of identifiers that could reasonably be grouped as a type plus subtypes. I could specify this by writing another section of the new draft that lays out another subtype field after the MNID subtype field from 4283. I guess it would be a "subsubtype" field if we are following the nomenclature for the fields as shown in RFC 4283. Or, alternatively, I could specify that for some types (e.g., DUID and RFID), the first eight bits of the identifier is the a field that we might call the "identifier subtype". Maybe that is cleaner. A third option would be to update RFC 4283, but that seems to be a bit heavy-handed. Comments? Or other options? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/25/2014 9:31 PM, Hakima Chaouchi wrote: Hi, For RFID we refer to the EPC standards. "The /Electronic Product Code/ (EPC) is an identification scheme for universally identifying physical objects by using Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags. The standardized EPC tag encoding consists of an EPC Identifier that uniquely identifies an individual object, and may also include a filter value if the filter is needed to enable effective and efficient reading of the EPC tags. The EPC Identifier is a meta-coding scheme designed to support the needs of various industries by accommodating existing coding schemes where possible and by defining new schemes where necessary." "EPC supports several encoding systems or schemes including GID (Global Identifier), SGTIN (Serialized Global Trade Item Number), SSCC (Serial Shipping Container), GLN (Global Location Number), GRAI (Global Returnable Asset Identifier), DOD (Department of Defense) and GIAI (Global Individual Asset Identifier). For each scheme except GID, there are two variations—a 64-bit scheme (for example, GLN-64) and a 96-bit scheme (GLN-96). GID has only a 96-bit scheme. Within each scheme, an EPC identifier can be represented in a binary form or other forms such as URI ..etc". May be we need some subtyping. Cheers, Hakima *De: *"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" *À: *"Charles E. Perkins" *Cc: *"Vijay Devarapalli" , dmm@ietf.org *Envoyé: *Vendredi 26 Septembre 2014 03:36:01 *Objet: *Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hi Charlie, > Is the DoD-96 identifier for a special kind of RFID, or is it valid for all the RFID devices that would be of interest? I do not know the answer for this question. I assumed DOD-96 is a mandated standard for RFID encoding, but looks like there are other formats like GID-96 ..etc. May be this may end up needing subtypes. We can defer this question to Hakima and learn some details on this, she seems to have written many books on RFID. Regards Sri From: "Charles E. Perkins" <mailto:charl...@computer.org>> Organization: Blue Skies Date: Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:42 PM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> Cc: "dmm@ietf.org <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli <mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Sri, Is the DoD-96 identifier for a special kind of RFID, or is it valid for all the RFID devices that would be of interest? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/21/2014 9:59 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Hi Hakima, That is a good idea. We should register a type for the Dod-96 identifier as well. Regards Sri From: Hakima Chaouchi mailto:hakima.chaou...@telecom-sudparis.eu>> Date: Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:11 AM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> Cc: Charlie Perkins mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Folks, Do you think that considering specific but needed technologies for moving objects in Internet of Things such as RFID (Radio Frequency Identifier) with 96 bits identifiers will be also relevent to Charlie's current draft and the efforts related to MNID? Regards, Hakima *De: *"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> *À: *"Charlie Perkins" mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, "Marco Liebsch" mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, dmm@ietf.org <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>, "Vijay Devarapalli" mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> *Envoyé: *Jeudi 11 Septembre 2014 23:57:11 *Objet: *Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hi Charlie, Few more reviews/discussions and capturing the consensus in the base version will help. B
Re: [DMM] MNID Types
I assumed DHCP-UUID is only one of the subtypes (type 4) of DUID definition specified in RFC3315.Defining one type value in MN-NAI for DUID should cover DUI-LLT, DUID-EN ..DUI-UUID ..etc… It may appear we are boiling the ocean here, but defining a type value for all common identifiers will help. Regards Sri From: "Charles E. Perkins" mailto:charl...@computer.org>> Organization: Blue Skies Date: Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:08 PM To: "Templin, Fred L" mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>>, Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> Cc: Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Fred, I can include DUID-UUID as an identifier type, and cite RFC 4122. Is this sufficient, or do I need to also do something related to DHCPv6 DUID? I did not see any specific connection between this type of identifier and the RFID discussion. Is there something that relates the two types? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/25/2014 2:00 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: Hi Charlie, I am interested in node IDs that can be represented in a DHCPv6 DUID. There is RFC6355 which encodes a node ID based on DUID-UUID (Universally Unique IDentifier). AFAICT, the UUID is a 128-bit container formatted per RFC4122 specifications that includes a time portion and a node ID portion. Any chance this would satisfy what you are looking for? Thanks - Fred From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Charles E. Perkins Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:43 PM To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) Cc: Vijay Devarapalli; dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Sri, Is the DoD-96 identifier for a special kind of RFID, or is it valid for all the RFID devices that would be of interest? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/21/2014 9:59 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Hi Hakima, That is a good idea. We should register a type for the Dod-96 identifier as well. Regards Sri From: Hakima Chaouchi mailto:hakima.chaou...@telecom-sudparis.eu>> Date: Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:11 AM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> Cc: Charlie Perkins mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Folks, Do you think that considering specific but needed technologies for moving objects in Internet of Things such as RFID (Radio Frequency Identifier) with 96 bits identifiers will be also relevent to Charlie's current draft and the efforts related to MNID? Regards, Hakima De: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> À: "Charlie Perkins" mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, "Marco Liebsch" mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>, "Vijay Devarapalli" mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Envoyé: Jeudi 11 Septembre 2014 23:57:11 Objet: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hi Charlie, Few more reviews/discussions and capturing the consensus in the base version will help. But, I'm ok either way … Regards Sri From: Charlie Perkins mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:46 PM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello folks, I propose to submit the -00.txt document as it is to the Internet Drafts directory, and then to go about making updates according to the discussion on this list. Do you think this is reasonable? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/11/2014 7:21 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Marco, Thinking further on the complementary identifier option. - There is already the link-layer identifier option that can be used for carrying the Mac address - IMEI and MSISDN are already defined in 29.275 as a 3GPP VSE's In some sense, the complementary identifiers are already present. Sri On 9/11/14 6:58 AM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <mailto:sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: I do not see a reason why multiple MN-Id instances need to be present in a single message ? In my experience, this is strictly a deployment consideration, when to use what type of identifiers. Assuming the backend system can tie all the MN-Id's to a single subscription, any presented identifier can be sufficient for the gateway to do the BCE lookup. If multiple instances can be present, then we need to deal with more error cases. Is that really needed ?
Re: [DMM] MNID Types
Hi Charlie, > Is the DoD-96 identifier for a special kind of RFID, or is it valid for all > the RFID devices that would be of interest? I do not know the answer for this question. I assumed DOD-96 is a mandated standard for RFID encoding, but looks like there are other formats like GID-96 ..etc. May be this may end up needing subtypes. We can defer this question to Hakima and learn some details on this, she seems to have written many books on RFID. Regards Sri From: "Charles E. Perkins" mailto:charl...@computer.org>> Organization: Blue Skies Date: Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:42 PM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> Cc: "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Sri, Is the DoD-96 identifier for a special kind of RFID, or is it valid for all the RFID devices that would be of interest? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/21/2014 9:59 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Hi Hakima, That is a good idea. We should register a type for the Dod-96 identifier as well. Regards Sri From: Hakima Chaouchi mailto:hakima.chaou...@telecom-sudparis.eu>> Date: Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:11 AM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> Cc: Charlie Perkins mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Folks, Do you think that considering specific but needed technologies for moving objects in Internet of Things such as RFID (Radio Frequency Identifier) with 96 bits identifiers will be also relevent to Charlie's current draft and the efforts related to MNID? Regards, Hakima De: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> À: "Charlie Perkins" mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, "Marco Liebsch" mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>, "Vijay Devarapalli" mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Envoyé: Jeudi 11 Septembre 2014 23:57:11 Objet: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hi Charlie, Few more reviews/discussions and capturing the consensus in the base version will help. But, I'm ok either way … Regards Sri From: Charlie Perkins mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:46 PM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello folks, I propose to submit the -00.txt document as it is to the Internet Drafts directory, and then to go about making updates according to the discussion on this list. Do you think this is reasonable? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/11/2014 7:21 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Marco, Thinking further on the complementary identifier option. - There is already the link-layer identifier option that can be used for carrying the Mac address - IMEI and MSISDN are already defined in 29.275 as a 3GPP VSE's In some sense, the complementary identifiers are already present. Sri On 9/11/14 6:58 AM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <mailto:sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: I do not see a reason why multiple MN-Id instances need to be present in a single message ? In my experience, this is strictly a deployment consideration, when to use what type of identifiers. Assuming the backend system can tie all the MN-Id's to a single subscription, any presented identifier can be sufficient for the gateway to do the BCE lookup. If multiple instances can be present, then we need to deal with more error cases. Is that really needed ? I am wondering if it would not be more appropriate to go for a different container option to carry such information. Something like a complementary identifier option. Sounds interesting. Are you suggesting we leave the current MN-ID as it is, but use a new complementary option ? But, if the requirement is for a Mac based identifiers, what will be there in the current MN-Id option ? We still need to have identifier there ? Sri On 9/11/14 2:03 AM, "Marco Liebsch" <mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu> wrote: No issue with logical vs. physical ID. But I am wondering about two things: Operation is clear to me in case a single MNID is present in a message and I see the value in being flexible to choose from different sub-types. If multiple MNIDs with different sub-types are present in a single message, which one should e.g. the LMA take for the BC lookup.. No big problem to solve, but to
Re: [DMM] MNID Types
Hi Charlie, I guess I have to say “I don’t know” to both questions. MNIDs are a fairly new subject for me, and I think others would be better qualified to answer. Just thought I would offer what I do know in case it might be of some help. Thanks - Fred From: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:charl...@computer.org] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 2:08 PM To: Templin, Fred L; Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) Cc: Vijay Devarapalli; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Fred, I can include DUID-UUID as an identifier type, and cite RFC 4122. Is this sufficient, or do I need to also do something related to DHCPv6 DUID? I did not see any specific connection between this type of identifier and the RFID discussion. Is there something that relates the two types? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/25/2014 2:00 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: Hi Charlie, I am interested in node IDs that can be represented in a DHCPv6 DUID. There is RFC6355 which encodes a node ID based on DUID-UUID (Universally Unique IDentifier). AFAICT, the UUID is a 128-bit container formatted per RFC4122 specifications that includes a time portion and a node ID portion. Any chance this would satisfy what you are looking for? Thanks - Fred From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Charles E. Perkins Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:43 PM To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) Cc: Vijay Devarapalli; dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Sri, Is the DoD-96 identifier for a special kind of RFID, or is it valid for all the RFID devices that would be of interest? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/21/2014 9:59 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Hi Hakima, That is a good idea. We should register a type for the Dod-96 identifier as well. Regards Sri From: Hakima Chaouchi mailto:hakima.chaou...@telecom-sudparis.eu>> Date: Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:11 AM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> Cc: Charlie Perkins mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Folks, Do you think that considering specific but needed technologies for moving objects in Internet of Things such as RFID (Radio Frequency Identifier) with 96 bits identifiers will be also relevent to Charlie's current draft and the efforts related to MNID? Regards, Hakima De: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> À: "Charlie Perkins" mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, "Marco Liebsch" mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>, "Vijay Devarapalli" mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Envoyé: Jeudi 11 Septembre 2014 23:57:11 Objet: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hi Charlie, Few more reviews/discussions and capturing the consensus in the base version will help. But, I'm ok either way … Regards Sri From: Charlie Perkins mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:46 PM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello folks, I propose to submit the -00.txt document as it is to the Internet Drafts directory, and then to go about making updates according to the discussion on this list. Do you think this is reasonable? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/11/2014 7:21 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Marco, Thinking further on the complementary identifier option. - There is already the link-layer identifier option that can be used for carrying the Mac address - IMEI and MSISDN are already defined in 29.275 as a 3GPP VSE's In some sense, the complementary identifiers are already present. Sri On 9/11/14 6:58 AM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <mailto:sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: I do not see a reason why multiple MN-Id instances need to be present in a single message ? In my experience, this is strictly a deployment consideration, when to use what type of identifiers. Assuming the backend system can tie all the MN-Id's to a single subscription, any presented identifier can be sufficient for the gateway to do the BCE lookup. If multiple instances can be present, then we need to deal with more error cases. Is that really needed ? I am wondering if it would not be more appropriate to go for a different container option to carry such information. Something like a complementary identifier option. Sounds interesting. Are you suggesting we leave the current MN-ID as it is, but use a new complementary optio
Re: [DMM] MNID Types
Hello Fred, I can include DUID-UUID as an identifier type, and cite RFC 4122. Is this sufficient, or do I need to also do something related to DHCPv6 DUID? I did not see any specific connection between this type of identifier and the RFID discussion. Is there something that relates the two types? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/25/2014 2:00 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: Hi Charlie, I am interested in node IDs that can be represented in a DHCPv6 DUID. There is RFC6355 which encodes a node ID based on DUID-UUID (Universally Unique IDentifier). AFAICT, the UUID is a 128-bit container formatted per RFC4122 specifications that includes a time portion and a node ID portion. Any chance this would satisfy what you are looking for? Thanks - Fred *From:*dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Charles E. Perkins *Sent:* Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:43 PM *To:* Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) *Cc:* Vijay Devarapalli; dmm@ietf.org *Subject:* Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Sri, Is the DoD-96 identifier for a special kind of RFID, or is it valid for all the RFID devices that would be of interest? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/21/2014 9:59 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Hi Hakima, That is a good idea. We should register a type for the Dod-96 identifier as well. Regards Sri *From: *Hakima Chaouchi mailto:hakima.chaou...@telecom-sudparis.eu>> *Date: *Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:11 AM *To: *Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> *Cc: *Charlie Perkins mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> *Subject: *Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Folks, Do you think that considering specific but needed technologies for moving objects in Internet of Things such as RFID (Radio Frequency Identifier) with 96 bits identifiers will be also relevent to Charlie's current draft and the efforts related to MNID? Regards, Hakima *De: *"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> *À: *"Charlie Perkins" mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, "Marco Liebsch" mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, dmm@ietf.org <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>, "Vijay Devarapalli" mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> *Envoyé: *Jeudi 11 Septembre 2014 23:57:11 *Objet: *Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hi Charlie, Few more reviews/discussions and capturing the consensus in the base version will help. But, I'm ok either way … Regards Sri *From: *Charlie Perkins mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>> *Date: *Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:46 PM *To: *Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> *Subject: *Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello folks, I propose to submit the -00.txt document as it is to the Internet Drafts directory, and then to go about making updates according to the discussion on this list. Do you think this is reasonable? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/11/2014 7:21 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Marco, Thinking further on the complementary identifier option. - There is already the link-layer identifier option that can be used for carrying the Mac address - IMEI and MSISDN are already defined in 29.275 as a 3GPP VSE's In some sense, the complementary identifiers are already present. Sri On 9/11/14 6:58 AM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <mailto:sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: I do not see a reason why multiple MN-Id instances need to be present in a single message ? In my experience, this is strictly a deployment consideration, when to use what type of identifiers. Assuming the backend system can tie all the MN-Id's to a single subscription, any presented identifier can be sufficient for the gateway to do the BCE lookup. If multiple instances can be present, then we need to deal with more error cases. Is that really needed ? I am wondering if it would not be more appropriate to go for a different container option to carry such information. Something like
Re: [DMM] MNID Types
Hi Charlie, I am interested in node IDs that can be represented in a DHCPv6 DUID. There is RFC6355 which encodes a node ID based on DUID-UUID (Universally Unique IDentifier). AFAICT, the UUID is a 128-bit container formatted per RFC4122 specifications that includes a time portion and a node ID portion. Any chance this would satisfy what you are looking for? Thanks - Fred From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Charles E. Perkins Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2014 1:43 PM To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) Cc: Vijay Devarapalli; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Sri, Is the DoD-96 identifier for a special kind of RFID, or is it valid for all the RFID devices that would be of interest? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/21/2014 9:59 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Hi Hakima, That is a good idea. We should register a type for the Dod-96 identifier as well. Regards Sri From: Hakima Chaouchi mailto:hakima.chaou...@telecom-sudparis.eu>> Date: Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:11 AM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> Cc: Charlie Perkins mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Folks, Do you think that considering specific but needed technologies for moving objects in Internet of Things such as RFID (Radio Frequency Identifier) with 96 bits identifiers will be also relevent to Charlie's current draft and the efforts related to MNID? Regards, Hakima De: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> À: "Charlie Perkins" mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, "Marco Liebsch" mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>, "Vijay Devarapalli" mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Envoyé: Jeudi 11 Septembre 2014 23:57:11 Objet: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hi Charlie, Few more reviews/discussions and capturing the consensus in the base version will help. But, I'm ok either way … Regards Sri From: Charlie Perkins mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:46 PM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello folks, I propose to submit the -00.txt document as it is to the Internet Drafts directory, and then to go about making updates according to the discussion on this list. Do you think this is reasonable? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/11/2014 7:21 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Marco, Thinking further on the complementary identifier option. - There is already the link-layer identifier option that can be used for carrying the Mac address - IMEI and MSISDN are already defined in 29.275 as a 3GPP VSE's In some sense, the complementary identifiers are already present. Sri On 9/11/14 6:58 AM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <mailto:sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: I do not see a reason why multiple MN-Id instances need to be present in a single message ? In my experience, this is strictly a deployment consideration, when to use what type of identifiers. Assuming the backend system can tie all the MN-Id's to a single subscription, any presented identifier can be sufficient for the gateway to do the BCE lookup. If multiple instances can be present, then we need to deal with more error cases. Is that really needed ? I am wondering if it would not be more appropriate to go for a different container option to carry such information. Something like a complementary identifier option. Sounds interesting. Are you suggesting we leave the current MN-ID as it is, but use a new complementary option ? But, if the requirement is for a Mac based identifiers, what will be there in the current MN-Id option ? We still need to have identifier there ? Sri On 9/11/14 2:03 AM, "Marco Liebsch" <mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu> wrote: No issue with logical vs. physical ID. But I am wondering about two things: Operation is clear to me in case a single MNID is present in a message and I see the value in being flexible to choose from different sub-types. If multiple MNIDs with different sub-types are present in a single message, which one should e.g. the LMA take for the BC lookup.. No big problem to solve, but to be considered in implementations. If the reason for multiple present MNIDs with different sub-types is to do other things than identifying the node or using the ID as key for a lookup, I am wonder
Re: [DMM] MNID Types
Hello Sri, Is the DoD-96 identifier for a special kind of RFID, or is it valid for all the RFID devices that would be of interest? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/21/2014 9:59 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Hi Hakima, That is a good idea. We should register a type for the Dod-96 identifier as well. Regards Sri From: Hakima Chaouchi <mailto:hakima.chaou...@telecom-sudparis.eu>> Date: Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:11 AM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> Cc: Charlie Perkins <mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli <mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Folks, Do you think that considering specific but needed technologies for moving objects in Internet of Things such as RFID (Radio Frequency Identifier) with 96 bits identifiers will be also relevent to Charlie's current draft and the efforts related to MNID? Regards, Hakima *De: *"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> *À: *"Charlie Perkins" <mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, "Marco Liebsch" mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, dmm@ietf.org <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>, "Vijay Devarapalli" mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> *Envoyé: *Jeudi 11 Septembre 2014 23:57:11 *Objet: *Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hi Charlie, Few more reviews/discussions and capturing the consensus in the base version will help. But, I'm ok either way … Regards Sri From: Charlie Perkins <mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:46 PM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>, Marco Liebsch <mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello folks, I propose to submit the -00.txt document as it is to the Internet Drafts directory, and then to go about making updates according to the discussion on this list. Do you think this is reasonable? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/11/2014 7:21 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Marco, Thinking further on the complementary identifier option. - There is already the link-layer identifier option that can be used for carrying the Mac address - IMEI and MSISDN are already defined in 29.275 as a 3GPP VSE's In some sense, the complementary identifiers are already present. Sri On 9/11/14 6:58 AM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" wrote: I do not see a reason why multiple MN-Id instances need to be present in a single message ? In my experience, this is strictly a deployment consideration, when to use what type of identifiers. Assuming the backend system can tie all the MN-Id's to a single subscription, any presented identifier can be sufficient for the gateway to do the BCE lookup. If multiple instances can be present, then we need to deal with more error cases. Is that really needed ? I am wondering if it would not be more appropriate to go for a different container option to carry such information. Something like a complementary identifier option. Sounds interesting. Are you suggesting we leave the current MN-ID as it is, but use a new complementary option ? But, if the requirement is for a Mac based identifiers, what will be there in the current MN-Id option ? We still need to have identifier there ? Sri On 9/11/14 2:03 AM, "Marco Liebsch" wrote: No issue with logical vs. physical ID. But I am wondering about two things: Operation is clear to me in case a single MNID is present in a message and I see the value in being flexible to choose from different sub-types. If multiple MNIDs with different sub-types are present in a single message, which one should e.g. the LMA take for the BC lookup.. No big problem to solve, but to be considered in implementations. If the reason for multiple present MNIDs with different sub-types is to do other things than identifying the node or using the ID as key for a lookup, I am wondering if it would not be more appropriate to go for a different container option to carry such information. Something like a complementary identifier option. marco -Original Message- From: Sri Gundavelli (
Re: [DMM] MNID Types
Hello Hakima, I'm putting in the RFID as a selection in the draft. I have two questions: - Do we need to include various types of RFIDs? - Can you send good citations for the Normative References? I have http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/ait/DoD_Suppliers_Passive_RFID_Info_Guide_v15update.pdf but I am not sure if that's the correct normative reference. Regards, Charlie P. On 9/21/2014 8:11 AM, Hakima Chaouchi wrote: Hello Folks, Do you think that considering specific but needed technologies for moving objects in Internet of Things such as RFID (Radio Frequency Identifier) with 96 bits identifiers will be also relevent to Charlie's current draft and the efforts related to MNID? Regards, Hakima *De: *"Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" *À: *"Charlie Perkins" , "Marco Liebsch" , dmm@ietf.org, "Vijay Devarapalli" *Envoyé: *Jeudi 11 Septembre 2014 23:57:11 *Objet: *Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hi Charlie, Few more reviews/discussions and capturing the consensus in the base version will help. But, I'm ok either way … Regards Sri From: Charlie Perkins <mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:46 PM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>, Marco Liebsch <mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org <mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello folks, I propose to submit the -00.txt document as it is to the Internet Drafts directory, and then to go about making updates according to the discussion on this list. Do you think this is reasonable? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/11/2014 7:21 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Marco, Thinking further on the complementary identifier option. - There is already the link-layer identifier option that can be used for carrying the Mac address - IMEI and MSISDN are already defined in 29.275 as a 3GPP VSE's In some sense, the complementary identifiers are already present. Sri On 9/11/14 6:58 AM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" wrote: I do not see a reason why multiple MN-Id instances need to be present in a single message ? In my experience, this is strictly a deployment consideration, when to use what type of identifiers. Assuming the backend system can tie all the MN-Id's to a single subscription, any presented identifier can be sufficient for the gateway to do the BCE lookup. If multiple instances can be present, then we need to deal with more error cases. Is that really needed ? I am wondering if it would not be more appropriate to go for a different container option to carry such information. Something like a complementary identifier option. Sounds interesting. Are you suggesting we leave the current MN-ID as it is, but use a new complementary option ? But, if the requirement is for a Mac based identifiers, what will be there in the current MN-Id option ? We still need to have identifier there ? Sri On 9/11/14 2:03 AM, "Marco Liebsch" wrote: No issue with logical vs. physical ID. But I am wondering about two things: Operation is clear to me in case a single MNID is present in a message and I see the value in being flexible to choose from different sub-types. If multiple MNIDs with different sub-types are present in a single message, which one should e.g. the LMA take for the BC lookup.. No big problem to solve, but to be considered in implementations. If the reason for multiple present MNIDs with different sub-types is to do other things than identifying the node or using the ID as key for a lookup, I am wondering if it would not be more appropriate to go for a different container option to carry such information. Something like a complementary identifier option. marco -Original Message- From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com] Sent: Donnerstag, 11. September 2014 00:42 To: Charlie Perkins; Marco Liebsch;dmm@ietf.org Cc: Vijay Devarapalli Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering.. Hello Charlie, Agree with that. MN-Id as its defined today is a logical identifier. It does not require the identifier to be bound to a physical device or a interface identity. But, we h
Re: [DMM] MNID Types
Hi Hakima, That is a good idea. We should register a type for the Dod-96 identifier as well. Regards Sri From: Hakima Chaouchi mailto:hakima.chaou...@telecom-sudparis.eu>> Date: Sunday, September 21, 2014 8:11 AM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> Cc: Charlie Perkins mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello Folks, Do you think that considering specific but needed technologies for moving objects in Internet of Things such as RFID (Radio Frequency Identifier) with 96 bits identifiers will be also relevent to Charlie's current draft and the efforts related to MNID? Regards, Hakima De: "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>> À: "Charlie Perkins" mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>>, "Marco Liebsch" mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>, "Vijay Devarapalli" mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Envoyé: Jeudi 11 Septembre 2014 23:57:11 Objet: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hi Charlie, Few more reviews/discussions and capturing the consensus in the base version will help. But, I'm ok either way … Regards Sri From: Charlie Perkins mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:46 PM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello folks, I propose to submit the -00.txt document as it is to the Internet Drafts directory, and then to go about making updates according to the discussion on this list. Do you think this is reasonable? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/11/2014 7:21 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Marco, Thinking further on the complementary identifier option. - There is already the link-layer identifier option that can be used for carrying the Mac address - IMEI and MSISDN are already defined in 29.275 as a 3GPP VSE's In some sense, the complementary identifiers are already present. Sri On 9/11/14 6:58 AM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <mailto:sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: I do not see a reason why multiple MN-Id instances need to be present in a single message ? In my experience, this is strictly a deployment consideration, when to use what type of identifiers. Assuming the backend system can tie all the MN-Id's to a single subscription, any presented identifier can be sufficient for the gateway to do the BCE lookup. If multiple instances can be present, then we need to deal with more error cases. Is that really needed ? I am wondering if it would not be more appropriate to go for a different container option to carry such information. Something like a complementary identifier option. Sounds interesting. Are you suggesting we leave the current MN-ID as it is, but use a new complementary option ? But, if the requirement is for a Mac based identifiers, what will be there in the current MN-Id option ? We still need to have identifier there ? Sri On 9/11/14 2:03 AM, "Marco Liebsch" <mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu> wrote: No issue with logical vs. physical ID. But I am wondering about two things: Operation is clear to me in case a single MNID is present in a message and I see the value in being flexible to choose from different sub-types. If multiple MNIDs with different sub-types are present in a single message, which one should e.g. the LMA take for the BC lookup.. No big problem to solve, but to be considered in implementations. If the reason for multiple present MNIDs with different sub-types is to do other things than identifying the node or using the ID as key for a lookup, I am wondering if it would not be more appropriate to go for a different container option to carry such information. Something like a complementary identifier option. marco -Original Message- From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com] Sent: Donnerstag, 11. September 2014 00:42 To: Charlie Perkins; Marco Liebsch; dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org> Cc: Vijay Devarapalli Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering.. Hello Charlie, Agree with that. MN-Id as its defined today is a logical identifier. It does not require the identifier to be bound to a physical device or a interface identity. But, we have clearly seen requirements where the need is for generating identifiers based on some physical identifiers. Those physical identifiers include IMSI, MSISDN, IMEI, MAC ..etc. If we can define a type for each of the source and the
Re: [DMM] MNID Types
Hi Charlie, Few more reviews/discussions and capturing the consensus in the base version will help. But, I'm ok either way … Regards Sri From: Charlie Perkins mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net>> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:46 PM To: Sri Gundavelli mailto:sgund...@cisco.com>>, Marco Liebsch mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu>>, "dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>" mailto:dmm@ietf.org>>, Vijay Devarapalli mailto:dvi...@rocketmail.com>> Subject: Re: [DMM] MNID Types Hello folks, I propose to submit the -00.txt document as it is to the Internet Drafts directory, and then to go about making updates according to the discussion on this list. Do you think this is reasonable? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/11/2014 7:21 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Marco, Thinking further on the complementary identifier option. - There is already the link-layer identifier option that can be used for carrying the Mac address - IMEI and MSISDN are already defined in 29.275 as a 3GPP VSE's In some sense, the complementary identifiers are already present. Sri On 9/11/14 6:58 AM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" <mailto:sgund...@cisco.com> wrote: I do not see a reason why multiple MN-Id instances need to be present in a single message ? In my experience, this is strictly a deployment consideration, when to use what type of identifiers. Assuming the backend system can tie all the MN-Id's to a single subscription, any presented identifier can be sufficient for the gateway to do the BCE lookup. If multiple instances can be present, then we need to deal with more error cases. Is that really needed ? I am wondering if it would not be more appropriate to go for a different container option to carry such information. Something like a complementary identifier option. Sounds interesting. Are you suggesting we leave the current MN-ID as it is, but use a new complementary option ? But, if the requirement is for a Mac based identifiers, what will be there in the current MN-Id option ? We still need to have identifier there ? Sri On 9/11/14 2:03 AM, "Marco Liebsch" <mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu> wrote: No issue with logical vs. physical ID. But I am wondering about two things: Operation is clear to me in case a single MNID is present in a message and I see the value in being flexible to choose from different sub-types. If multiple MNIDs with different sub-types are present in a single message, which one should e.g. the LMA take for the BC lookup.. No big problem to solve, but to be considered in implementations. If the reason for multiple present MNIDs with different sub-types is to do other things than identifying the node or using the ID as key for a lookup, I am wondering if it would not be more appropriate to go for a different container option to carry such information. Something like a complementary identifier option. marco -Original Message- From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com] Sent: Donnerstag, 11. September 2014 00:42 To: Charlie Perkins; Marco Liebsch; dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org> Cc: Vijay Devarapalli Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering.. Hello Charlie, Agree with that. MN-Id as its defined today is a logical identifier. It does not require the identifier to be bound to a physical device or a interface identity. But, we have clearly seen requirements where the need is for generating identifiers based on some physical identifiers. Those physical identifiers include IMSI, MSISDN, IMEI, MAC ..etc. If we can define a type for each of the source and the rules for generating MN-ID based using those sources, the sender and receiver will have clear guidance on how to use the spec. Some pointers, explanation and examples for each of those identifiers will greatly help avoid inter-op issues. Regards Sri On 9/10/14 3:21 PM, "Charlie Perkins" <mailto:charles.perk...@earthlink.net> wrote: Hello folks, I think it's best to consider the MNID as simply living in a space of identifiers, and not worry too much about whether it's a logical identifier or a physical identifier. If the former, then somewhere (perhaps below the network layer) the logical identifier has been bound to something in the physical interface, but that's not our problem. The number space for types of MNIDs is likely to stay pretty empty, so I'd say we could add as many types as would be convenient for the software designers. So, we could conceivably have several MNIDs defined that all "looked like" NAIs (which, themselves, "look like" FQDNs). Regards, Charlie P. On 9/10/2014 8:11 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: Yes. Currently, the MNID is if the nai format and is overloaded. The MNID in 3GPP specs is the IMSI-NAI (IMSI@REALM), its based on the IMSI. Ex: "@epc.mnc.mcc.3gppnetwork.or
Re: [DMM] MNID Types
Hello folks, I propose to submit the -00.txt document as it is to the Internet Drafts directory, and then to go about making updates according to the discussion on this list. Do you think this is reasonable? Regards, Charlie P. On 9/11/2014 7:21 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: > > > > > Marco, > > > Thinking further on the complementary identifier option. > > - There is already the link-layer identifier option that can be used for > carrying the Mac address > - IMEI and MSISDN are already defined in 29.275 as a 3GPP VSE's > > In some sense, the complementary identifiers are already present. > > Sri > > > > > > On 9/11/14 6:58 AM, "Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)" wrote: > >> I do not see a reason why multiple MN-Id instances need to be present in a >> single message ? In my experience, this is strictly a deployment >> consideration, when to use what type of identifiers. >> >> Assuming the backend system can tie all the MN-Id's to a single >> subscription, any presented identifier can be sufficient for the gateway >> to do the BCE lookup. >> >> If multiple instances can be present, then we need to deal with more error >> cases. Is that really needed ? >> >> >>> I am wondering if it would not be more appropriate to go for a different >>> container option to carry such information. Something like a >>> complementary identifier option. >> Sounds interesting. Are you suggesting we leave the current MN-ID as it >> is, but use a new complementary option ? But, if the requirement is for a >> Mac based identifiers, what will be there in the current MN-Id option ? We >> still need to have identifier there ? >> >> >> >> >> Sri >> >> >> >> >> >> On 9/11/14 2:03 AM, "Marco Liebsch" wrote: >> >>> No issue with logical vs. physical ID. But I am wondering about two >>> things: >>> >>> Operation is clear to me in case a single MNID is present in a message >>> and I see the value in being >>> flexible to choose from different sub-types. If multiple MNIDs with >>> different sub-types are present in >>> a single message, which one should e.g. the LMA take for the BC lookup.. >>> No big problem to solve, but >>> to be considered in implementations. >>> >>> If the reason for multiple present MNIDs with different sub-types is to >>> do other things than identifying >>> the node or using the ID as key for a lookup, I am wondering if it would >>> not be more appropriate >>> to go for a different container option to carry such information. >>> Something like a complementary >>> identifier option. >>> >>> marco >>> -Original Message- From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com] Sent: Donnerstag, 11. September 2014 00:42 To: Charlie Perkins; Marco Liebsch; dmm@ietf.org Cc: Vijay Devarapalli Subject: Re: [DMM] regarding the re-chartering.. Hello Charlie, Agree with that. MN-Id as its defined today is a logical identifier. It does not require the identifier to be bound to a physical device or a interface identity. But, we have clearly seen requirements where the need is for generating identifiers based on some physical identifiers. Those physical identifiers include IMSI, MSISDN, IMEI, MAC ..etc. If we can define a type for each of the source and the rules for generating MN-ID based using those sources, the sender and receiver will have clear guidance on how to use the spec. Some pointers, explanation and examples for each of those identifiers will greatly help avoid inter-op issues. Regards Sri On 9/10/14 3:21 PM, "Charlie Perkins" wrote: > Hello folks, > > I think it's best to consider the MNID as simply living in a space of > identifiers, and not worry too much about whether it's a logical > identifier or a physical identifier. If the former, then somewhere > (perhaps below the network layer) the logical identifier has been bound > to something in the physical interface, but that's not our problem. > > The number space for types of MNIDs is likely to stay pretty empty, so > I'd say we could add as many types as would be convenient for the > software designers. So, we could conceivably have several MNIDs > defined that all "looked like" NAIs (which, themselves, "look like" > FQDNs). > > Regards, > Charlie P. > > > > On 9/10/2014 8:11 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) wrote: >> Yes. Currently, the MNID is if the nai format and is overloaded. The >> MNID in 3GPP specs is the IMSI-NAI (IMSI@REALM), its based on the >> IMSI. Ex: >> "@epc.mnc.mcc.3gppnetwork.org² >> >> We also have MAC48@REALM; >> >> We also have approaches to transform MAC to Pseudo IMSI, and then >> carry IMSI-NAI as the MN-ID. >> >> >> So, we need unique sub-types for each of the types/sources. >> >> MN-Id based on
