1. Concerns on EDCF Admission Control
April 19
May 2003
Concerns on EDCF Admission Control
Shugong Xu
Sharp Laboratories of America, Inc.
Shugong Xu, Sharp Labs

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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