Hi Mark,
Thanks for your comments. Please see my response below.
Regards;
Osama.
From: Mark Rison [mailto:m.rison@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 11:23 AM
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11] TGm Submission 11-20-0814 -- TC (traffic category/categories)
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Hello Osama,
> > 2.6.2.16 Two instances of Traffic
Categories are not included in the proposed changes that will need to be added.
> > 2.6.2.16.1 ""Other
"traffic category" locations; P275.13 and P299.24
> I have looked in drafts 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2 and couldn’t find these occurrences. Can someone point them to me, Note that my reference is draft 3.0
I see these in D3.0 at the specified locations (within rounding error):
[osama] Thanks. Now I see them. I was looking for “TC”. I’ll update my submission accordingly.
> > 2.6.2.17 The discussion was leading
to removing TC and update the description on how UP is defined when it is not passed in through the MAC SAP
> the description is already available P299, “The UP is provided with each MSDU at the medium access control service access point (MAC SAP) either directly, in the
UP parameter, or indirectly, in a TSPEC or SCS Descriptor element designated by the UP parameter”. Is there a need for something else? If yes, what is needed?
> Please let me know if other things I need to consider.
When we discussed this in the teleconf, I referred to
CID 7796 in 16/0276, where we had got to:
[osama] I wasn’t part of the discussion of CID 7796 and I don’t know how it was resolved. However CID 7796 scope is different from the CIDs I submitted. If you think more work on
this area is needed then perhaps you can resubmit the comment again.
·
A TS is a traffic stream
·
A TSPEC is a definition of a traffic stream
·
The UP is a number in the range 0-7 specifying a user priority
·
The TC is a number also in the range 0-7 but identifying a user priority or a frame that is not part of a defined traffic stream (not 100% sure how this differs from a UP, really
-- think group response (maybe from Mark?) was "UP notionally carried across MAC-MAC transport; UP can be mapped to TC either directly or via classifier; ditto on receive. UP carried across SAP, TC is internal mechanism used to achieve this")
·
The TSID is a number in the range 8-15 identifying a defined traffic stream or a frame that is part of this stream (but the frames in this stream are, in EDCA, identified over the air by the UP for that stream)
·
The TID is a number in the range 0-15 that is a UP if it is <8 and is a TSID otherwise
[osama] All this is good and I don’t disagree. However I fail to see how it is related to the CIDs or their resolutions. I submitted these comments
with the hope to remove the confusion arising from adding a parameter (Traffic Category) that doesn’t figure in anything in the spec. It is a redundant parameter and can easily be replaced with UP. I’d be happy to withdraw my comments if I am the only one
confused with the term Traffic Category. As I mentioned in my presentation before, this term doesn’t have any equivalent in 802.1Q or 802.1D where I believe 802.11e borrowed the concept of UP.
·
As for your statement; “The TSID is a number in the range 8-15 identifying a defined traffic stream or a frame that is part of this stream (but the frames in
this stream are, in EDCA, identified over the air by the UP for that stream)”
·
This is a very confusing statement. How EDCA can be applied to TS? The UP in the TSPEC element is the UP of the MSDUs or A-MSDUs belonging to
the TS as defined in “UP subfield(#2494) indicates the actual value of the UP to be used for the transport of MSDUs or A-MSDUs belonging to this TS when relative prioritization is required. When the TCLAS element is present in the request, the UP subfield
in TS Info field of the TSPEC element is reserved.” This UP value cannot be included in the TID field because the TID field will include the TSID in this case. Perhaps this one of the areas where the spec is not clear and need to be clarified, but it is
beyond the scope of the CIDs I am resolving.
·
BA is set up and identified on a per-UP (not per-TSID) basis
[think group response was "No, can be TSID (see e.g. 669.65). In case of TS can have TCLAS. Use TC if no TSPEC in ADDBA Req, use TS(ID) otherwise"] even for defined traffic streams (hm, so why 16 replay counters? Or maybe you can have BAs under
HCCA/HEMM/SPCA/SEMM?)
So at least then the direction was that you couldn't just delete TC
because it was involved in TCLASes. I thought you were going to go
off and examine this point.
[osama] I don’t know you reference. P669.65 in draft 3.0 doesn’t have any text. I am not sure what you are referring to. My recollection is the TCLAS never been mentioned during
the discussion. Theminutes doesn’t include any reference to TCLAS. I looked at clause 9.4.2.30 of draft 3.0 and there is no mention of traffic category in the context of TCLAS element even though there is a UP field.
[Also, I don't understand the concept of a "frame UP" (CID 4145/4147) or
"MSDU or A-MPDU UP" (CID 4146) you are apparently trying to introduce.]
[osama] I think we can come up with a better name if frame UP is confusing. I’ll think of something and present to the group.
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: Osama Aboul-Magd <oamagd@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2020 15:15
To: STDS-802-11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11] TGm Submission 11-20-0814
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
Hello All,
I’d like to start an e.mail discussion on doc 11-20/0814 which I presented on June 5.
From the teleconference minutes:
2.6.2.16 Two instances of Traffic
Categories are not included in the proposed changes that will need to be added.
2.6.2.16.1 ""Other
"traffic category" locations; P275.13 and P299.24
[osama] I have looked in drafts 3.0, 3.1, and 3.2 and couldn’t find these occurrences. Can someone point them to me, Note that my reference is draft 3.0
2.6.2.17 The discussion was leading to
removing TC and update the description on how UP is defined when it is not passed in through the MAC SAP
[osama] the description is already available P299, “The UP is provided with each MSDU at the medium access control service access point (MAC SAP) either directly, in the UP parameter, or
indirectly, in a TSPEC or SCS Descriptor element designated by the UP parameter”. Is there a need for something else? If yes, what is needed?
Please let me know if other things I need to consider.
Regards;
Osama.
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11 list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11&A=1