Thanks for your further thoughts, Osama.
> > 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.
CID 7796 was:
|
Identifiers |
Comment |
Proposed change |
|
CID 7796 Mark RISON |
The distinctions made in the specification w.r.t. TS/TC/TSID/TID are incomprehensible |
Make the definitions comprehensible.
E.g. what does "UP for either TC or TS" mean? |
This seems to me pretty similar to the comments you are resolving in
20/0814, which are essentially about when exactly TS, TC, TSID and TID
are the right terms to use:
|
CID |
Page |
Line |
Clause |
Comment |
Proposed Change |
Resolution |
|
4145 |
797.00 |
59 |
9.2.4.5.2 |
In many places in the draft it is mentioned; "The TID subfield identifies the TC or TS to which the corresponding MSDU (or fragment thereof) or |
As in comment |
Revised TGm
Editor: Please make the following changes (#4145, #4147) |
|
4147 |
917.00 |
5 |
9.4.1.13 |
"TID subfield contains the TC or TS for which the
BlockAck frame is being requested". In fact the TID doesn't contain the TC or the TS. It contain the UP or the TSID. The same sentence is repeated in other places of the draft. |
Change "TID subfield contains the TC or TS for which the
BlockAck frame is being requested." to "TID subfield contains the UP or TSID for which the
BlockAck frame is being requested.". |
Revised TGm
Editor: Please make the following changes (#4145, #4147) |
|
4146 |
798.00 |
30 |
9.2.4.5.2 |
Table 9-12 - the second row includes; "UP for either TC or TS, regardless of whether admission |
Change; "UP for either TC or TS, regardless of whether admission |
Revised TGm
Editor: Please make changes in <this document> related to CID 4146 |
·
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.
The point of the discussion that occurred and was captured under CID 7796 in 16/0276
is that it was claimed then that TC is not a "redundant parameter" that "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 you can see from my CID 7796 I too find the terms and their intent confusing.
·
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.
I'm not sure I can answer this question.
I'm hoping maybe the Chair of the ARC SC
(copied) might be able to help.
My guess at this point is that there are three paths:
1) Data not subject to a TCLAS or TSPEC just uses UPs throughout.
At the MAC SAP
it's called the priority, in
QoS Data frames it's in the TID field (so the
msb is 0).
TSID and TC are N/A.
2) Data sent under a TSPEC without a TCLAS is associated with a TSID that has b3 set
and a UP.
The TSID is used at the MAC SAP, but apparently (per that statement above)
over the air they go out with the UP, not the TSID, in the TID field in the
QoS Control
field.
TC is N/A.
3) Data sent under a TSPEC with an associated TCLAS has a TSID and no UP per se.
It has a TC, which is then used in the TID field in the
QoS Control field.
It's possible that for the latter two cases the ADDBA uses the TSID not the
UP as the TID.
At this point I'm floundering, and again hoping some ARC guru
can rescue me.
·
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.
16/0276 is "Resolutions for some comments on 11mc/D5.0 (SBmc1)" so I
think that's where you'd need to look at 669.65.
[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.
OK.
(Are you suggesting we're going to have multiple flavours of UP?
A frame/MPDU UP, and an MSDU or A-MPDU UP?)
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?
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
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