| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
I wholeheartedly agree with Matthew on this point. One element is a label and the other is a class. Stating that they should roughly mean the same thing and that they are therefore freely swappable terms, without carefully examining where they are used (throughout the standard) and why they came to be named differently is a risky procedure.
I would suggest parking this simplification and examining it in 11me, within a broader review of QoS terms if needed.
The fact that TC is not used outside of 802.11 does not remove its value imho (I note that this overly general statement gleefully ignores 802.16 and a few others, where TC is found). It just means that a need expressed in 802.11 is not present in other 802 technologies (but I can point to plenty of other terms in 802.11s, 802.11-1999 etc. that are quite specific to 802.11 technologies).
My 2 cents
Jerome (nice guy too, some days)
---- On Tue, 04 Aug 2020 15:26:54 -0400 Matthew Fischer <00000959766b2ff5-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote ----
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector ---
We have several terms and rather than just change TC to UP, I'd suggest a reexamination of all of the following:
priority (at the MAC SAP)
User Priority
TC
UP
TS
TSID
TID
If you simply change a lot of instances of TC to UP, I believe that you will make things even worse, as someone intended TC to represent something different from UP, and you're not really attempting to figure out why or what that difference is.
A very significant immediate problem with changing TC to UP is that there are many places where there is a reference to an MPDU that is part of a TS and which has a UP.
So if nothing else, for those MPDUs that are part of a TS, you will create confusion when you offer the choice of "UP or TS" to go into a TID field.
I.e. at a minimum, you had better make such a change to look more along the lines of: "TS of the MPDU, if one exists, otherwise the UP of the MPDU"
Seeing that the proposed change has not even caught this little problem, I hesitate to agree to any modification of the use of any of these terms without seeing a thorough, descriptive interpretation of the existing terms relative to all of the various QoS mechanisms that employ them.
Matthew Fischer
Nice Guy
Broadcom Inc.
+1 408 543 3370 office
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:54 AM Osama AboulMagd <mailto:Osama.AboulMagd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks Matt.
…and why TC shouldn’t be removed. How useful is it to Know that MSDUs with a given UP forms a TC? How is it used for the QoS?I also don’t understand UP ==TID
and UP <> TID. Isn’t it true that TID values in the range 0-7 are UPs and TID values in the range 8-15 are TSIDs?
Regards;
Osama.
From: Matthew Fischer [mailto:mailto:00000959766b2ff5-dmarc-request@LISTSER
_______________________________________________________________________________
If you wish to be removed from this reflector, do not send your request to this reflector - it will have no effect.
Instead, go to http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11 and then press the LEAVE button.
If there is no LEAVE button here, try http://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-RO.
Further information can be found at: http://www.ieee802.org/11/Email_Subscribe.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
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