Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBN] Regarding the SP in 24/0837 (Indication of Use Case in 11bn)

Akira,
          I like your concept and thank you for creating the submission.

I have some feedback for you:
1) I do not think the term "use case" is suitable for 11bn. It is a very generic term and I am concerned that it will be misunderstood. I think a simple extension to the existing Access Network Options field (see slide 10) is the easiest way forward for your work. Use some of the reserved values (6-13) in Table 9-236 and I think that is all you have to do.

2) A better straw poll would be:
"Do you agree to extending the Access Network Options field in 11bn?"

3) The original intention of the Interworking element is to provide an indication to the non-AP STA about the type of network to which the AP is attached. It is only to be treated as best effort information and cannot be relied upon. If a more reliable indication is required, the non-AP STA needs to associate to an AP and then determine the true characteristics of the network.

Kind regards

Stephen

On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 at 03:49, Akira Kishida <0000225315dd7287-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hello all,

 

My SP (24/0837) will run this Thursday's TGbn Joint call (June 20). Before casting the SP, I would like to answer members' questions. Thanks, Necati, Gaius, and Rakesh, for your comments!

 

The SP text is;

Do you agree that indicating the use case is beneficial in 11bn?

-Yes/No/Abs

https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/24/11-24-0837-00-00bn-indication-of-use-case-in-11bn.pptx

 

1)What is the "Use Case" indicated in this contribution?

I intend the term "Use Case" to stand for the characteristics of the network to which the AP that indicates this information belongs. For example, the type of access network, such as private or public networks, or the venue information defined in the Access Network Options field and Venue Info field in the Interworking element are suitable for "Use Case" information. Please see the APPENDIX in my contribution.

Moreover, I think we can newly define and indicate the network type of "Latency Sensitive Network" or applications such as "XR/VR" or "assembly line in IIoT" as for "Use Case."

 

2)Is any normative behavior with the use case indication expected?

I haven't expected any normative behavior so far because I think using this information will be left to implementation or vendor-specific (it may not be defined in 11bn). However, this information will be helpful for Wi-Fi reliability. For instance, if the BSS's use case is a latency-sensitive network, the other BSSs can avoid using the channels or links that the BSS utilizes. 

 

3) What kind of indication and granularity is expected?

Those are future discussion items, but I expect that we can indicate the kind of information shown in the Access Network Options field and Venue Info field in the Interworking element defined in 11u. This element's granularity of information may be reasonable. However, the information defined in 11u was outdated, and we could update or redefine it for the UHR.

 

4)Will there be a dictionary of use cases and their index?

If we reuse the Interworking element, there are a lot of Venue type and their index (please see Table 9-66 in P802.11-2020), and we can reuse it. There are still a lot of non-defined indexes.

 

Any comments are welcome.

 

Best regards,

Akira

 

 

==========================================

Akira KISHIDA, Ph.D.

NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION (NTT)

NTT Access Network Service Systems Laboratories

Tel: +81-46-859-2093 Fax :+81-46-859-3145

E-mail: akira.kishida@xxxxxxx

(Changed from akira.kishida.fs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)

 

 

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBN list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBN&A=1