Why don’t we change the title to “TC to AC mapping”? The TID isĪssigned to an MSDU in the layers above the MAC.” If that is true then how come Table 10-1 title is “UP to AC Mapping”. “NOTE-There are 16 possible TID values eight identify traffic categories (TCs), and the other eight identify parameterized traffic streams (TSs).
For example the TID definition includes the note: Actually the TID definition is very confusing. Identifies the TC or TS for which the BlockAck is being requested.” Should really be “The TID subfield contains But I can also see over time some sentences have mixed them up. That’s the correct usage by existing definitions, which are consistent. MSDU doesn’t belong to a UP, MSDU has a UP. TC UP or TS to which the corresponding MSDU … P797L60 | The TID subfield identifies the EDCA is managed using UP (Table 10-1) and HCCA is managed using TSID. Or the HCF controlled channel access (HCCA)? This is the question I am asking and so far I haven’t received any good answer. Having known that how does TC with UPi (i=0-7) figure in any way, shape, or form in using either HCF contention based access (EDCA) Yes sure TC is not UP and it is a problem because, as I argue, TC is a useless parameter that can be replaced You seem to imply that the issue is linguistic where it is really a technical one. Changes such as following are not correct, There are very few places that can be writtenīetter, but they are not about changing UP To TC. TC is a “group of MSDUs with a given UP”, as exactly defined (and as UP is also defined). > I tried to find any relevant DCN 1814 but failed. > UP and TSID do (both attributes of an MSDU), and also TC and TS (both groups of MSDUs). > UP and TS don’t go together in one sentence (as suggested by some changes in DCN 1814) – I think the question we ought to ask ourselves is how TC is contributing to EDCA or HCCA? Knowing that MSDUs with a given UP belong to a TC, how this knowledge is useful in any way? Are there any clauses in the draft This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Working Group Reflector. To: Re: TGm Submission 11-20-0814 - TC (traffic category/categories) Having said that, my only concern is whether we have enough time to review the suggested changes in next couple of days while ensuring we don’t break anything inadvertently. To improve readability I am supportive of replacing its usage with direct reference to “UP” everywhere I generally agree with your view about “TC”: the term does not seem to add any technical value, but rather just adds to the confusion.
0 kommentar(er)
