Thanks for the feedback. Do you have any thoughts on which phrase to use instead of “traffic stream”?
Xiaofei Clement Wang
Principal Engineer | InterDigital
T: (631) 622.4028
From: Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 2:16 AM
To: Xiaofei Wang <Xiaofei.Wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; STDS-802-11-TGBC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: discussion on CID 1123
|
|
Hello Xiaofei,
As I've previously mentioned, I plan to make a comment on D2.0 that we
should not be calling things "EBCS traffic stream"s, because "traffic stream"
already has a definition that is (I think) not compatible with the intended
meaning of "EBCS traffic stream":
traffic stream (TS): A set of medium access control (MAC) service data units (MSDUs) to be delivered
subject to the quality-of-service (QoS) parameter values provided to the MAC in a particular traffic
specification (TSPEC). TSs are meaningful only to MAC entities that support QoS within the MAC data
service. These MAC entities determine the TSPEC applicable for delivery of MSDUs belonging to a
particular TS using the priority parameter provided with those MSDUs at the MAC service access point
(MAC SAP).
However, as a general rule I think that the same term should be used
everywhere for the same concept, so that it can be grepped for. So
for now I think the terms EBCS Traffic Stream Request/Response are the
right ones to use. If we decide to rename the things to EBCS Supercalifragilisticexpialidociousness
then the terms EBCS Supercalifragilisticexpialidociousness Request/Response
would be the right ones, etc.
Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français
Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600
Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601
ROYAUME UNI WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk
From: ** STDS-802-11-TGbc -- Enhanced Broadcast Service ** <STDS-802-11-TGBC@xxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Xiaofei Wang
Sent: Wednesday, 11 August 2021 01:45
To: STDS-802-11-TGBC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBC] discussion on CID 1123
Dear all,
We had a discussion on CID 1123 during today’s teleconference shown as below.
During the July meeting, Mark H has proposed to use the term EBCS Streams Request/response frame. However, today, there was a comment that since we also have the term EBCS traffic streams, that may lead to additional comments. Though in my humble opinion, EBCS Traffic Streams Request frame may be a bit too long. There is also disagreement on whether to use the original name of “EBCS Request/Response frames”.
So now we have three options:
- Use EBCS Request/Response frame (no change)
- Use EBCS Streams Request/Response frame (as discussed during July meeting)
- Use EBCS Traffic Stream Request/Response frame (as discussed today)
As an alternative, maybe we can use EBCS Content Request/Response frame?
So Option 4:
- Use EBCS Content Request/Response frame
Please let us know of any feedback and preference or if you have any proposals. Thank you!
|
1123 |
252 |
1 |
9.6.50.1 |
47.00 |
1 |
9.6.50.1 |
Xiaofei Wang |
The name of the eBCS Request/Response frame should be eBCS Negotiation Request/Response frame. The original name does not specify the function and MLME SAP interfaces for them are MLME-EBCNEGOTIATION.request/response. |
As commented. |
|
Best regards,
Xiaofei Clement Wang
Principal Engineer | InterDigital
T: (631) 622.4028
E: Xiaofei.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBC&A=1
|
|