Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi all Documenting my reasoning for my support for Po-Kai’s comment resolution for CID 22343 in 24/296, and why I think it is the only permitted, viable way forward:
1) One or both of the following are true: 1a) A desire was expressed to send a frame using different ACs on different links. 1b) A desire was expressed to send frames of a flow using different ACs on different links. 2) 2a) If the ACs used for the frame are different then the TIDs used for the frame are different. 2b) If the ACs used for the frames are different then the TIDs used for the frames are different. are different. 3) 3a) Basic MLD behavior enables a frame to be retried on a different link (or even sent in parallel or near-parallel on two links).
// And we are not going to change this behavior (aka undermine the MLD architecture) at this late stage. // And indeed 1a) is only valuable if this behavior occurs. 4) 4a) Taking 2a) & 3a) together, the same frame could be sent on two links in different TIDs:
4b) For 1b) to be valuable, frames in a flow will be sent on different links. Given 2b), the frames sent on different links will use different TIDs 5) 5a) When a frame is sent on a different TID, it takes its sequence number from a different sequence number space. Accordingly, it is impossible for the recipient to detect that the recipient has received a duplicate frame. Both copies of
the frame will be sent to upper layers. 5b) When a flow of frames are sent across different TIDs, they take their sequence numbers from different sequence number spaces. Accordingly, it is impossible for the recipient to know which frames belong to the same flow, and then how
to order the flow of frames. The frames will commonly be sent to upper layers out of order. 6) The IEEE 802.11be project was approved based on its PAR and CSD. In the CSD we made the following commitment to IEEE:
7) 7a) Meanwhile, 802.1Q requires negligible duplication of frames:
7b) As well, 802.1Q requires negligible out-of-order delivery:
Summary: Using a reductio ad absurdum approach in steps 2)-7), we see that both 1a) and 1b) are “absurb” positions. Assuming we’re not going to undermine the MLD architecture at this late stage, I don’t believe that the 802.11be project has any
choice but to accept Po-Kai’s comment resolution (or something essentially the same). Best wishes Brian 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 |