Re: [802.21] terminology clean up needed for link parameters and QoS parameters
Hello Qiaobing,
Qiaobing Xie wrote:
> 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.
>
I would say, that depends on the semantics of the primitive used. It is
the case for Link_Configure_Threshold, but not for Link_Get_Parameters
and Link_Get_Parameters. Wouldn't you agree?
> 2. Avoid label them "QoS". Just define them as a set of generic link
> measurements that future generation of links will likely support.
>
That's fine...
> regards,
> -Qiaobing
Best wishes,
-Nada
--
Nada Golmie, Ph.D.
Manager, High Speed Network Technologies Group
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Dr. Stop 8920
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
Email: nada@nist.gov
Phone: (301) 975-4190
Fax: (301) 590-0932
Web: http://w3.antd.nist.gov