Schedule Element Synchronization and Simplification

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Doc.: IEEE /272a Submission June 2001 S. Choi, Philips Research Slide 1 Problems with IEEE (e) NAV Operation and ONAV Proposal Javier del.
Advertisements

Doc: IEEE /705ar0 Submission Javier del Prado et. al November 2002 Slide 1 Mandatory TSPEC Parameters and Reference Design of a Simple Scheduler.
Doc.: IEEE /412r0 Submission S. Choi, Philips Research July 2001 Slide 1 Aligning e HCF and h TPC Operations Amjad Soomro, Sunghyun.
Doc. :IEEE /314r0 Submission Sai Shankar et al., Philips ResearchSlide 1 May 2002 TXOP Request: in Time vs. in Queue Size? Sai Shankar, Javier.
January 2002 Khaled Turki et. al, Texas InstrumentsSlide 1 doc.: IEEE /022r0 Submission TID Field Usage in QoS CF-Poll Khaled Turki and Matthew.
Doc.: IEEE /340r1a Submission May 2003 Zhun Zhong et al. PhilipsSlide 1 Medium Sensing Time Histogram Request and Report Zhun Zhong, Stefan Mangold,
doc.: IEEE /560r1 Submission John Kowalski, Sharp November 2001 Adding Rate Parameter to the TSPEC /Queue State Element John Kowalski Sharp.
Doc: IEEE /625r1 Submission Amjad Soomro et. al September 2002 Slide 1 TGe ‘Fast track’ proposed Draft Normative Text Changes Sai Shankar, Javier.
Doc.:IEEE /566r2 Submission November 2001 S. Choi, Philips & M.M. Wentink, Intersil Slide 1 Multiple Frame Exchanges during EDCF TXOP Sunghyun.
VHT Frame Padding Date: Authors: Month Year
Overlapping BSS Proposed Solution – “OSQAP”
IEEE e Performance Evaluation
Compressed Uplink Trigger Frame
BSS Max Idle Period and Sleep Interval
EDCF TXOP Bursting Simulation Results
Requirements and Implementations for Intra-flow/Intra-AC DiffServ
Non-Automatic Power Saving Delivery
Summary of Changes to TSPEC (in Document 406r3)
Issue of Buffer Status reporting
CC/RR Performance Evaluation - Revisited
Considerations on VL WUR frames
Enhancements to Mesh Discovery
Peer Power Save Mode for TDLS
Proposed Modifications in TGh Draft Proposal
Month 2002 doc.: IEEE /xxxr0 January 2003
Signaling Acceptable Error Rate in TSPEC
doc.: IEEE /xxx Authors:
Power saving operation for WUR STAs in duty cycle mode
Regarding HE fragmentation
Burst Transmission and Acknowledgment
Resolution for CID 118 and 664 Date: Authors: Month Year
Class-based Contention Periods (CCP) for the n MAC
EDCF Issues and Suggestions
AP Power Down Notification
Peer Power Save Mode for TDLS
Power saving operation for WUR STAs in duty cycle mode
MAC Partial Proposal for TGn
Overlapping BSS Proposed Solution – “OSQAP”
Power saving mechanism consideration for ah framework
Proposed Overlapping BSS Solution
Considerations on VL WUR frames
QoS STA function applied to Mesh STA
Regulatory Information for Low Latency Scanning in 5 GHz bands
Proposed Overlapping BSS Solution
Applicability of 11s MCCA to HCCA OBSS
Requirements and Implementations for Intra-flow/Intra-AC DiffServ
Multiple Frame Exchanges during EDCF TXOP
PS-Poll TXOP Date: Authors: Month Year
VTS Robust Multicast/Broadcast Protocol
Measurement reporting in TGh
802.11e EDCA-APSD TXOP Handoff September 2003
HCCA TXOP handling difficulties
Peer Power Save Mode for TDLS
Interference Signalling Enhancements
NAV Operation Rules under HCF
Scheduled Peer Power Save Mode for TDLS
Regarding HE fragmentation
Request Element for DFS in TGh
MBCA and Beacon Timing element clean up
802.11g Contention Period – Solution for Co-existence with Legacy
Proposed Resolution for Draft 3.0
Resolutions of the Remaining Power Management Comments
Power saving operation for WUR STAs in duty cycle mode
Dynamic TIM and Page Segmentation
Considerations on VL WUR frames
Applicability of 11s MCCA to HCCA OBSS
HEz Ranging Availability Window
Randomization Interval and Start Times
NAV Operation Rules under HCF
TXOP Request: in Time vs. in Queue Size?
Presentation transcript:

Schedule Element Synchronization and Simplification May 2003 Schedule Element Synchronization and Simplification Amjad Soomro, Javier del Prado, Sai Shankar, Zhun Zhong and Atul Garg Philips . . . Soomro et. al. Philips

Outline Current Draft Specifications Issues Proposed Fixes Conclusions Month 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/xxxr0 May 2003 Outline Current Draft Specifications Issues Proposed Fixes Conclusions Soomro et. al. Philips John Doe, His Company

Specification Interval Month 2002 doc.: IEEE 802.11-02/xxxr0 May 2003 Schedule Element in D4.0 Section 7.3.2.19 Schedule Element 1 4 4 2 2 2 Element ID Length Min Service Interval Max Service Interval Minimum TXOP Interval Maximum TXOP Interval Specification Interval Soomro et. al. Philips John Doe, His Company

Min & Max Service Interval in D4.0 May 2003 Min & Max Service Interval in D4.0 The Min Service Interval specifies the minimum of: a) the minimum time in units of microseconds between the start of successful successive QoS(+)CF-Poll that is sent to a non-AP QSTA for uplink or direct link transmissions, and; b) the minimum time between successive successful TXOP downstream transmissions to a non-AP The Max Service Interval specifies the maximum of: a) the maximum time in units of microseconds between the start of scheduled successive QoS(+)CF-Poll that is sent to a non-AP QSTA for uplink or direct link transmissions, and; b) the maximum time between successive scheduled TXOP downstream transmissions to a non-AP Soomro et. al. Philips

Min & Max TXOP Duration in D4.0 May 2003 Min & Max TXOP Duration in D4.0 The Minimum TXOP Duration field is 2 octets long and contains an unsigned integer that specifies the minimum TXOP duration in units of microseconds that is allocated to this non-AP QSTA. The Maximum TXOP Duration field is 2 octets long and contains an unsigned interger that specifies the maximum TXOP duration in units of microseconds that is allocated to this non-AP QSTA. Soomro et. al. Philips

Issues in D4.0 HC services QSTA with bursts of downlink frames /TXOPS May 2003 Issues in D4.0 HC services QSTA with bursts of downlink frames /TXOPS To maximize power saving, chain of downlink frames/TXOPs could be grouped together when mean data rates are significant fraction of PHY data rate Max TXOP size of ~8ms may fragment channel allocation while reducing the potential to save power. Ambiguity in start/end of a service period If the response for the first frame in the service period is lost, the QAP and non-AP QSTA may become unsynchronized. Soomro et. al. Philips

Proposed Schedule Element Fixes May 2003 Proposed Schedule Element Fixes Proposed Schedule Element Frame Format Add one bit in QoS Control Field Last Bit: Indicates the this is the last downlink frame/TXOP in this service period Element ID Length Start Time Service Interval Max Service Duration Specification Interval 4 1 2 Octets: 1 Soomro et. al. Philips

May 2003 Definitions Start Time: The Start Time field shall be set equal to the low order four bytes of the TSF timer value at the start of the first service period, expressed in units of microseconds. Service Interval: The Service Interval shall be set equal to the time between two successive service periods, expressed in units of microseconds. Max Service Duration: The Max Service Duration shall be set equal to the maximum duration of a service period, expressed in units of 8 microseconds. Specification Interval: Same as in D4.0. Soomro et. al. Philips

May 2003 Definitions Service Period What: A service period is contiguous time during which a set of one or more downlink frames and/or one or more polled TXOPs are granted to a QSTA. Beginning: A Service Period starts at regular intervals of time specified in ‘Service Interval’ field. The first service period starts when low order 4 bytes of the TSF time equals the value specified in ‘Start Time’ field. End: A service period ends after 1) time duration specified in ‘Max Service Duration’ field; or 2) if it receives a frame with ‘Last’ bit set in QoS Control Field during a service period. Soomro et. al. Philips

Definitions May 2003 Max Service Duration Beacons Start Time Service Period TBTT TBTT TBTT TBTT TBTT TBTT Schedule Element Reception Service Interval Service Interval Soomro et. al. Philips

On Last Bit Last bit separates May 2003 On Last Bit Last bit separates End of power-save data delivery End of service period Both mechanisms could overlap in time and overloading More bit cannot resolve ambiguity Soomro et. al. Philips

Truncated TSF Timer Value May 2003 Truncated TSF Timer Value Low order 4 bytes cover ~ 71 min Timer ambiguity due to wrap over could be simply resolved by using the nearest reference value, that is, choose the nearest absolute time value between future and past values Reduces implementation complexity Soomro et. al. Philips

Conclusions Simplified Schedule Element Synchronized Service Periods May 2003 Conclusions Simplified Schedule Element Synchronized Service Periods HC and QSTA unambiguously know the service period start time Better power saving Less channel fragmentation Multiple TXOPs allowed per Service Period Soomro et. al. Philips