Concerns on EDCF Admission Control April 19 May 2003 Concerns on EDCF Admission Control Shugong Xu Sharp Laboratories of America, Inc. E-Mail: sxu@sharplabs.com Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

Summary Existing issues in current EDCF admission control proposal. May 2003 Summary Existing issues in current EDCF admission control proposal. What options we have? Straw poll Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

Existing issues in the current DAC May 2003 Existing issues in the current DAC Many people in this group think it should be removed and/or replaced. AFAIK, The reason includes: complexity concern from chip-makers instability (not quit understand though, since no results shown so far) difficulty in working with DLP ( the biggest existing hole, in my view, which can be addressed.) should be addressed in 11e what options we have? Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

Option 1: Just remove it without replacement May 2003 Option 1: Just remove it without replacement NO new EDCF admission control will be introduced; However, many people in this group think EDCF QoS should be more than just differentiation between traffics. Which means user will expect same level of service between now and then, if running an application using EDCF. Diffserv model from IETF can only work in light load situations since the space for differentiation in 11 is very limited. Then no way to protect the existing QoS traffics Document 02/544r0 demonstrated this. What the EDCF QoS means then? More no-vote may be caused from this option. Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

Option 2: replace it without explicit signaling May 2003 Option 2: replace it without explicit signaling Using TSPEC, same way as for Polling-based access Then we will have connection-based EDCF setup, tear-down, time out, etc kind of scary? We do not mind. :-) Some may think it overkill using TSPEC Why not just use polling based access if AP knows the desires of the STAs? But why two different signaling systems if defining another signaling, like PSPEC? Sounds like more unacceptable to some folks. Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

Option 3: replace it with some unknown-yet mechanism May 2003 Option 3: replace it with some unknown-yet mechanism Leave a hook, which allows the implementation decide what kind of hook? how those potential mechanisms work together will be a challenge. Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

option 3: replace it with some unknown-yet thing option 4: do nothing May 2003 Straw poll Option1: Just remove it ! Option 2: replace it with explicit signaling as in polling based access option 3: replace it with some unknown-yet thing option 4: do nothing option 5: make it optional Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs