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

Re: [802.21] terminology clean up needed for link parameters and QoS parameters



Nada,

...
>> 2) For eash link type, a set of link specific measurements that we can 
>> set thresholds for - I don't see much value for supporting a set of 
>> generic link measurements (you have to have a real link that take the 
>> measurement before you can get it)
>>
> We do have MIH generic parameters related to QOS that we can pass to the 
> link layer. These can be considered link generic. The mapping from 
> generic to specific can either occur at the MIH or link layer. Although 
> today's links may not be able to understand the MIH generic QOS 
> parameters, the motivation is that future generation links or extensions 
> will include them. This is a compromise that we agreed to and hope we 
> don't have to undo it.

I am ok with the idea of keeping the generic set for future-proofing. 
But I'd like suggest a few things in the description to avoid possible 
confusion:

1. When dealing with link measurements, we do not pass the parameter to 
the link; instead, we pass thresholds set against a parameter to the 
link and hope that the link will a) take the measurement, b) compare the 
measurement with the thresholds, c) decide to indication a 
threshold-crossing event.

2. Avoid label them "QoS". Just define them as a set of generic link 
measurements that future generation of links will likely support.

regards,
-Qiaobing