[Warning: different Mark]
> Thanks for your comments. Did you look at the adhoc notes column in my document? I went through all of the comments and proposed resolutions based on the framework where we maintain the term User Priority for 802.11. I'm OK with dropping the 802.11 qualifier.
Yes, I did look at the Ad-Hoc Notes column, but perhaps I misunderstood/missed the "See CID x"s.
> For CID 55, I have no issue with removing the 802.11 before UP, so I can update my resolution to:
> Proposed Revised. Change
> "The QoS facility supports eight priority values, referred to as UPs. The values a UP may take are the integer values from 0 to 7 and are identical to the IEEE 802.1D™ priority tags."
> to
> "The QoS facility supports eight priority values, referred to as UPs. The values an IEEE 802.11 UP may take are the integer values from 0 to 7 and can be mapped to IEEE 802.1Q Priority Code Points."
> See 802.1Q, clause 6.9.3 for the definition of Priority Code Points.
This still has "802.11" before "UP" as highlighted. [Separately there is the point the other Mark raised that PCP is a field name, distinct from the concept, which is an "[IEEE Std?] 802.1Q priority".]
> CIDs 58 and 59 are the same comment with alternative proposed resolutions. I'm proposing we accept the resolution to CID 59 which uses PCP.
59 in 21/0695r2 uses UP too:
Replace "802.1D UP / 802.1Q Priority Code Point" with "802.1Q UP / Priority Code Point"
> CIDs 60 and 61 are the same comment with alternative proposed resolutions. I'm proposing we accept the resolution to CID 60 which uses PCP.
60 uses UP too:
Replace "802.1D UP / 802.1Q Priority Code Point" with "802.1Q UP / Priority Code Point"
> CIDs 66 and 67 are the same comment with alternative proposed resolutions. I'm proposing that we adopt a revised resolution based on the proposed resolution to CID 67.
OK.
> CIDs 78 and 79 are the same comment with alternative proposed resolutions. I propose that we accept the resolution to CID 79, but if to get rid of the 802.11 qualifier on UP, the resolution would become:
> Revised. Replace second sentence with, "Note that suggested default UPs differ from IEEE 802.1Q suggested default priorities. For example, in IEEE Std 802.11, priority 2 is lower than priority 0 while in IEEE Std 802.1Q it is higher."
OK (modulo my chronic doubt about when "IEEE" or "IEEE Std" is necessary).
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: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, 4 June 2021 00:19
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Proposed resolutions for CIDs on 802.1D withdrawal
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
+ Glenn and Paul back on the thread for their view, given that its their comments and they should have opinions on how 802.11 user priorities relate 802.1Q.
I'll take a look at the response and comment tomorrow.
Cheers,
Mike
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:41 PM <mark.hamilton2152@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks, Mike.
I did look at your ad hoc notes, yes.
First, a slight aside. I think Priority Code Point is a field name, in a VLAN tag. What we’re doing within 802.11 is not VLAN tagging (we can carry VLAN tags in payload, of course, but our priority scheme is in our own MAC header encoding). So, while I agree that 802.1D and 802.1Q use different terminology (and both differ from 802.11), and part of cleaning up the 802.1D mess is fixing that terminology, I am not convinced that saying our UP maps to an 802.1Q PCP is correct. I think it more correctly maps to an 802.1Q priority, in the sense of subclause 6.5.9 in 802.1Q and probably more relevant/correct subclause 14.2 of 802.1AC (802.1Q points to 802.1AC for MAC Service definitions).
But, I digress… (We can sort out the terminology secondly, after we have reached agreement on a more fundamental issue, in my opinion…)
The bigger problem is that 802.1Q and 802.1D both have an implied order to the values of the priority, and they differ. 802.11 was originally done using the 802.1D version, where the “default” priority (0) falls between priorities 2 and 3, as can be seen in Table G-2 of 802.1D-2004, and is consistent with 802.11’s Table 10-1. But, 802.1Q/802.1AC changed it so the “default” priority (still 0) falls between priorities 1 and 2, as can be seen in the description in 802.1AC subclause 14.2. So, if we say that the UP in 802.11 maps to the 802.1Q/802.1AC concepts, we will be changing the relative priorities of UP=2 and UP=0. This is where I get concerned that we are making existing implementations non-compliant (which is much worse than have a terminology confusion). Further, it would mean that our AC mappings and default EDCA parameters for UP=2 make no sense (as UP=2 should be higher priority than UP=0, per 802.1Q/802.1AC).
This is why I thought our tentative agreement in REVme was to create a completely new concept, the “802.11 UP”, which is self-described within 802.11. We can keep Table 10-1, and keep all our priority ordering and behavior unchanged, by simply saying these are 802.11 priorities (UPs) and removing the concept that they map to anything in 802.1D or 802.1Q/802.1AC. I think the only real change we need is in 802.1AC, in B.1.5, where we should specify that when the “802.11 UP” priority is mapped to the ISS priority, the sort order for 0 and 2 are flipped (for non-GLK operation – note that GLK _does_ use 802.1Q PCP, as described in 802.11 Annex R).
Mark
From: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 12:40 PM
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Proposed resolutions for CIDs on 802.1D withdrawal
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your comments. Did you look at the adhoc notes column in my document? I went through all of the comments and proposed resolutions based on the framework where we maintain the term User Priority for 802.11. I'm OK with dropping the 802.11 qualifier.
For CID 55, I have no issue with removing the 802.11 before UP, so I can update my resolution to:Proposed Revised. Change
"The QoS facility supports eight priority values, referred to as UPs. The values a UP may take are the integer
values from 0 to 7 and are identical to the IEEE 802.1D™ priority tags."to
"The QoS facility supports eight priority values, referred to as UPs. The values an IEEE 802.11 UP may take are the integer values from 0 to 7 and can be mapped to IEEE 802.1Q Priority Code Points."
See 802.1Q, clause 6.9.3 for the definition of Priority Code Points.
CIDs 58 and 59 are the same comment with alternative proposed resolutions. I'm proposing we accept the resolution to CID 59 which uses PCP.
CIDs 60 and 61 are the same comment with alternative proposed resolutions. I'm proposing we accept the resolution to CID 60 which uses PCP.
CIDs 66 and 67 are the same comment with alternative proposed resolutions. I'm proposing that we adopt a revised resolution based on the proposed resolution to CID 67.
CIDs 78 and 79 are the same comment with alternative proposed resolutions. I propose that we accept the resolution to CID 79, but if to get rid of the 802.11 qualifier on UP, the resolution would become:
Revised. Replace second sentence with, "Note that suggested default UPs differ from IEEE 802.1Q suggested default priorities. For example, in IEEE Std 802.11, priority 2 is lower than priority 0 while in IEEE Std 802.1Q it is higher."
Cheers,
Mike
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 2:19 PM Mark Rison <m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have a question regarding the term "802.11 UP", which appears in
55, 58, 61, 78, 79.
From what I'm understanding, the only thing that has a UP now is
802.11. 802.1D is dead and 802.1Q has PCPs not UPs. So I don't think
"UP" (or "user priority") needs to be adorned with "802.11".
In turn, I am confused by the "802.1Q UP"s (or "802.1Q default priorities")
in 59, 60, 66, 78. Aren't these all 802.1Q PCPs?
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: M Montemurro <montemurro.michael@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2021 18:55
To: STDS-802-11-TGM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGM] Proposed resolutions for CIDs on 802.1D withdrawal
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Hi all,
I posted https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/21/11-21-0695-02-000m-revme-cc35-802-1d-comments.xlsx, which proposes resolutions to comments submitted with respect to updating REVme to address the withdrawal of 802.1D.
Based on the feedback after presenting this document twice and a careful review of the comments, I proposed resolutions to all the comments:
1) The group has discussed the comments in GREEN are marked them Ready for Motion on the REVme call on April 26.
2) I reviewed the comments in WHITE and believe they are simple resolutions that we can accept.
3) For the comments in YELLOW, I believe additional discussion is needed. I prepared resolutions under my proposed assumption that in the base 802.11 standard, we would want to maintain the default User Priority mapping that was originally defined in 802.1D. I renamed these 802.11 user priority values.
Before I schedule this document for presentation again, I'd like to solicit feedback on the reflector on these CIDs (namely the CIDs marked in YELLOW and WHITE).
Cheers,
Mike
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1
