Cleaning Up MAC/PHY Interface Timing

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
January 2002 Khaled Turki et. al, Texas InstrumentsSlide 1 doc.: IEEE /022r0 Submission TID Field Usage in QoS CF-Poll Khaled Turki and Matthew.
Advertisements

Doc.: IEEE /630r4a Submission S. Choi, Philips Research January 2002 Slide 1 HC Recovery and Backoff Rules Sunghyun Choi and Javier del Prado.
Doc.: IEEE /0509r3 Submission Proposed Resolution to CID 72, 119 and 128 Qian ChenSlide 1 May 2014 Date:
Submission doc.: IEEE 11-10/0745r2 May 2010 Matthew Fischer, BroadcomSlide 1 MFQ MMPDU MAC Sequence Numbering Date: Authors:
Doc.: IEEE /336 Submission November 2000 Michael Fischer, Intersil Slide 1 The PIFS Ambiguity A tutorial on some practical limitations to the.
Doc.: IEEE /452 Submission December, 2000 Michael Fischer, Intersil Slide 1 A Hybrid Coordination Function for QoS Michael Fischer Intersil Corporation.
Doc.: IEEE /494r0 Submission July 2001 Michael Fischer, Intersil (TGe Editor)Slide 1 Provisional Tge Ballot Comment Resolutions from the May,
Doc.: IEEE /0415r0 Submission April mc CIDs 1136,1118,1458 Date: Authors: Graham Smith, DSP GroupSlide 1.
Doc.: IEEE /102r0 Submission January 2003 Sid Schrum, Texas Instruments, Inc.Slide 1 QBSS Downlink Broadcast and Multicast Data Frame Handling.
Doc.: IEEE /034r0 Submission January 2002 Matthew B. Shoemake, TGg ChairpersonSlide 1 TGg Report to the IEEE Working Group Matthew B. Shoemake.
Doc.:IEEE /566r2 Submission November 2001 S. Choi, Philips & M.M. Wentink, Intersil Slide 1 Multiple Frame Exchanges during EDCF TXOP Sunghyun.
Doc.: IEEE /0103r0 Submission January 2004 Jesse Walker, Intel CorporationSlide 1 Some LB 62 Motions January 14, 2003.
New Amendment Style Date: Authors: January 2017 May 2011
New Amendment Style Date: Authors: January 2017 May 2011
FILS Reduced Neighbor Report
Proposed Modifications to e-D4.0 Group ACK
Undetected Duplicate Frame Reception
MCS, NSS, BW and PPDU selection for 11ax
Data Function Frames Date: Authors: Jan 2009 Month Year
Submission Title: [Resolution on comment #20,22 and 30]
EPD, Mixed BSSes, and Group RAs
EPD, Mixed BSSes, and Group RAs
TWT Information frames in 11ax
Spec text clarification for FDMA
Proposed Modifications to
Non-Automatic Power Saving Delivery
MAC Capabilities Info. in HE Capabilities IE
QoS Statistics Date: Authors: January 2005 January 2005
Hybrid Coordination Function (HCF) Frame Exchange and NAV Details
Some Power-save changes in e Draft
MAC Clarifications Date: Authors: September 2016
Element for Legacy Indication
Fragmentation with A-MPDU
doc.: IEEE /457 Mathilde Benveniste AT&T Labs, Research
Submission Title: [Resolution on comment #20,22 and 30]
Cleaning Up MAC/PHY Interface Timing
Max Frame Length Changes
Use of EDCA Access During HCF Polling
Regarding HE fragmentation
Burst Transmission and Acknowledgment
EDCF Issues and Suggestions
Remedy to the Lost Ack Problem while Power Saving
Terminology Corrections and Improvements for the TGe Draft
MDA comments categorization
Proposed Resolutions to RFI comments of LB 166 on IEEE s D7.0
MAC improvement using random AIFSN
Suggested changes to Tge D3.3
Amendment for emergency alert system notification
802.11m Report May 2004 Month 1998 doc.: IEEE /xxx May 2004
Multiple Frame Exchanges during EDCF TXOP
Suggested changes to Tge D3.3
Efficient TIM element supporting multiple BSSIDs
Selective Segment Retransmission of VHT Compressed Beamforming
HCCA TXOP handling difficulties
Sharp Laboratories USA
Appended Channel Switch Announcement
Regarding HE fragmentation
QoS Metrics Date: Authors: January 2005 Month Year
July 2004 Project: IEEE P Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) Submission Title: [Modified Delayed (Dly) Acknowledgement for.
TGi Draft 1 Clause – 8.5 Comments
Burst Transmission and Acknowledgment
GCR using SYNRA for GLK Date: Authors: July 2015 Month Year
Use of More Data Field Date: Authors: Nov 2005 Month Year
Chapter 11 Comment Resolution for Letter Ballot 63
Motions for TGe New Business
TGi Draft 1 Clause – 8.5 Comments
Use of More Data Field Date: Authors: Jan 2006 Jan 2006
Srinivas Kandala Sharp Labs
NAV Operation Rules under HCF
TXOP Request: in Time vs. in Queue Size?
Presentation transcript:

Cleaning Up MAC/PHY Interface Timing November 2001 Cleaning Up MAC/PHY Interface Timing Michael Fischer Intersil Corporation 4242-3 Medical Drive San Antonio, TX 78229 voice: +1-210-614-4096 fax: +1-210-614-8192 mfischer@choicemicro.com Michael Fischer, Intersil

November 2001 Introduction In 9.10.3 of D1.3 there is an open issue identified, as follows: OPEN ISSUE: It appears that the current fragmentation rules are unnecessarily restrictive, in particular that all fragment sizes must be equal. Fragmentation should not be arbitrary, and fragments other than the last should be of even lengths, but it may be appropriate to relax some of the legacy restrictions. This submission proposes to close this open issue in the manner suggested therein: Permit fragment sizes to vary in fragmented data and management type frames directed to ESTAs (including EAPs) with the following restrictions: The frame body of all but the final fragment of any MSDU must contain an even number of octets. No refragmentation is permitted. Any retries which may be necessary involve retransmission of the same fragment as was originally transmitted. The fragment size rules for data and management type frames directed to STAs remain unchanged to avoid backward compatibility problems. Michael Fischer, Intersil

Normative Text Changes (1) November 2001 Normative Text Changes (1) Change the second paragraph of 9.4 as shown: For MPDUs sent in a non-QoS BSS, the length of a fragment MPDU shall be an equal number of octets for all fragments except the last, which may be smaller. For MPDUs sent in a QBSS, there is no requirement for equality of fragment lengths for fragment MPDUs directed to QSTAs (including the QAP). The length of (a) every fragment MPDU shall (always) be an even number of octets, except for the last fragment of an MSDU or MMPDU, which may be either an even or an odd number of octets. The length of a fragment shall never be larger than (a)dot11FragmentationThreshold unless WEP is invoked for the MPDU. If WEP is active for the MPDU, then the MPDU shall be expanded by IV and ICV (see 8.2.5); this may result in a fragment larger than (a)dot11FragmentationThreshold . Michael Fischer, Intersil

Normative Text Changes (2) November 2001 Normative Text Changes (2) Change the third paragraph of 9.4 as shown: When (data) an MSDU or MMPDU is to be transmitted by a (non-QoS) STA, the number of octets in the fragment (before WEP processing) shall be determined by (a)dot11FragmentationThreshold and the number of octets in the MPDU or MMPDU that have yet to be assigned to a fragment at the instant the fragment is constructed for the first time. When an MSDU or MMPDU is to be transmitted to a QSTA associated in a QBSS or the QAP of a QBSS, the value of dot11FragmentationThreshold only needs to be considered as an upper bound as described in the previous paragraph. Once a fragment is transmitted for the first time, its frame body content and length shall be fixed until it is successfully delivered to the immediate receiving (Q)STA. A (Q)STA shall be capable of receiving fragments of arbitrary length. Michael Fischer, Intersil

November 2001 Motion Move to empower the TGe editor to incorporate the changes to 9.4 as given on slides 3 and 4 of 01/626r0 into the TGe draft. Michael Fischer, Intersil