QoS Poll Modifications Allowing Priority Month 2000 doc.: IEEE 802.11-00/xxx November, 2002 QoS Poll Modifications Allowing Priority Author: Matthew Sherman AT&T Labs - Research mjsherman@att.com Date: November 12, 2002 Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs John Doe, His Company

November, 2002 Purpose Define changes in the use of QoS Polls allowing the implementation of priority based scheduling disciplines Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs

November, 2002 The Problem Existing draft does not permit priority based polling schemes WSTA does not know polled priority WSTA_1 may send lower priority traffic than WSTA_2 Strict priority not maintained May drop higher priority traffic Aggregate schedule forces all priorities to be grouped in single service period Would like to support priority based scheduling Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs

Why support priorities November, 2002 Why support priorities 802.1D only provides “priority” Voice and Video likely arrive by 802.1D bridge May only have “priority” available Would like to support scheduling diciplines based on priority Can be augmented by other parameters such as service time Priority schedulers are very simple Require proper admissions control Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs

Changes to draft Remove TXOP Limit field from Poll November, 2002 Changes to draft Remove TXOP Limit field from Poll TXOP Limit fully duplicates information already available from Duration field Subject of prior ballot comments (Why have both) Made appropriate adjustments to text in draft Makes room for new fields Added two fields (5 bits) Strict Priority (1 bit) Polled TID (4 bits) Added text describing usage Schedule element no longer “aggregate” Let WSTA do aggregation Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs

November, 2002 Notes on Aggregation Doing schedule aggregation at WSTA rather than HC makes more sense Less parameters for WSTA to track Equivalent performance Have single service period anyway Either side can always renegotiate TSPEC WSTA should always send most critical data first No difference in performance if aggregation in HC or WSTA Want disaggregated schedules to have same power save capabilities as aggregated HC needs multiple TSPECs and schedules anyway Gives station flexibility in choice of aggregation Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs

November, 2002 Proposed Motion Instruct the TGe editor to incorporate the changes described in 02/706r0 into the TGe draft Matthew Sherman, AT&T Labs