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

Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBC] discussion on CID 1123

Hello Xiaofei,

 

As I've previously mentioned, I plan to make a comment on D2.0 that we

should not be calling things "EBCS traffic stream"s, because "traffic stream"

already has a definition that is (I think) not compatible with the intended

meaning of "EBCS traffic stream":

 

traffic stream (TS): A set of medium access control (MAC) service data units (MSDUs) to be delivered

subject to the quality-of-service (QoS) parameter values provided to the MAC in a particular traffic

specification (TSPEC). TSs are meaningful only to MAC entities that support QoS within the MAC data

service. These MAC entities determine the TSPEC applicable for delivery of MSDUs belonging to a

particular TS using the priority parameter provided with those MSDUs at the MAC service access point

(MAC SAP).

 

However, as a general rule I think that the same term should be used

everywhere for the same concept, so that it can be grepped for.  So

for now I think the terms EBCS Traffic Stream Request/Response are the

right ones to use.  If we decide to rename the things to EBCS Supercalifragilisticexpialidociousness

then the terms EBCS Supercalifragilisticexpialidociousness Request/Response

would be the right ones, etc.

 

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: ** STDS-802-11-TGbc -- Enhanced Broadcast Service ** <STDS-802-11-TGBC@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Xiaofei Wang
Sent: Wednesday, 11 August 2021 01:45
To: STDS-802-11-TGBC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBC] discussion on CID 1123

 

Dear all,

 

We had a discussion on CID 1123 during today’s teleconference shown as below.

 

During the July meeting, Mark H has proposed to use the term EBCS Streams Request/response frame. However, today, there was a comment that since we also have the term EBCS traffic streams, that may lead to additional comments. Though in my humble opinion, EBCS Traffic Streams Request frame may be a bit too long. There is also disagreement on whether to use the original name of “EBCS Request/Response frames”.

 

 

So now we have three options:

  1. Use EBCS Request/Response frame (no change)
  2. Use EBCS Streams Request/Response frame (as discussed during July meeting)
  3. Use EBCS Traffic Stream Request/Response frame (as discussed today)

 


As an alternative, maybe we can use EBCS Content Request/Response frame?

So Option 4:

  1. Use EBCS Content Request/Response frame

 

 

Please let us know of any feedback and preference or if you have any proposals. Thank you!

 

1123

252

1

9.6.50.1

47.00

1

9.6.50.1

Xiaofei Wang

The name of the eBCS Request/Response frame should be eBCS Negotiation Request/Response frame. The original name does not specify the function and MLME SAP interfaces for them are MLME-EBCNEGOTIATION.request/response.

As commented.

 

 

 

Best regards,

Xiaofei Clement Wang

Principal Engineer | InterDigital

T: (631) 622.4028

E: Xiaofei.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBC&A=1

To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBC list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBC&A=1