| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Boyce, Thanks for your comments. While I agree that low latency traffic is an important one and should be addressed but please note that NS/EP STA user traffic is not a low latency traffic. Also as I mentioned during my presentation, NS/EP STA does not require any priority access when there is no network congestion. Therefore, we should not mix up these two use cases. Regards, -Subir From: Yangbo (Boyce, 2012 NT Lab) <yangbo59@xxxxxxxxxx> Hi Subir Thanks for your presentations. I personally have a similar feeling that the QoS mechanism used in predominant EDCA-based channel access seems not precise enough to satisfy the increasingly varied demands, not only NS/EP but also some other traffics, for example many low-latency traffic has much lower latency requirement than voice (RTT 300ms according to G.114). Since we have agreed to discuss NS/EP and low latency traffic in 11be, I think maybe we can try to come up with a general solution for both NS/EP and other low latency traffics, not just a patch for a specific service. Just my two cents. Regards Boyce. 发件人: Das, Subir [mailto:sdas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Hi Osama, Thanks for your comment. I understand that TID values from 8-15 are used for TSIDs but is it not true that the Trigger-based approach is different than EDCA-based channel access? Also TID values 14 and 15 serve as special indicators ( All/BlockAck) in .ax although they are in TSIDs. Regards, _Subir From: Osama AboulMagd <Osama.AboulMagd@xxxxxxxxxx> Hi Subir, I couldn’t make my comment during the teleconference because of an audio problem. For the TID field the values 0-7 are used for UP and the values 8-15 are used for traffic stream ID (TSID) defined for HCCA operation. This way you are actually proposing to use an already defined value. It is true that perhaps there are no HCCA implementations. However the fact remains that TSID are still defined in 802.11 spec. Regards; Osama. From: Das, Subir [mailto:sdas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Hello All, Thanks for your comments during the presentation today. I responded to some folks in chat window and will work with others. I would like to see if folks are okay with the SP language since I didn’t get much time to discuss this. # SP1 : Do you support the addition of following text to TGbe SFD? The NS/EP Priority Service non-AP STAs shall use a TID value >7 in QoS Control Field in its buffer status report as a response to BSRP Trigger Frame to indicate the need for priority access to AP STA Note: The identification of the need is outside the scope of this specification. Thanks, _Subir To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBE list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBE&A=1 |
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature