1. Data Function Frames Date: 2009-01-16 Authors: Jan 2009 Month Year
doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0
Jan 2009
Data Function Frames
Date:
Authors:
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems
John Doe, Some Company

2. Abstract There is a desire to define a mechanism to
Month Year
doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0
Jan 2009
Abstract
There is a desire to define a mechanism to
Perform certain functions on a non-AP STA at a lower priority than is currently associated with management frame priority
Use a transport frame between AP and non-AP STA that can be assigned priority dynamically or statically
Perform certain functions that may require fragmentation that do not align well with traditional management frames
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems
John Doe, Some Company

3. The proposal summary… Reuse 11r/TGz new Ethertype data frame Jan 2009
New Data Function
Encapsulation
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems

4. Jan 2009
Pros/Cons
Pros:
Allows data frames with already existing QoS definition to be used
Allows existing fragmentation procedures to work on the function frames
Provides the flexibility to assign QoS dynamically to features and sub-features depending on the deployment requirements
Cons:
Some spec work
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems

5. Data Function Encapsulation
Jan 2009
Data Function Encapsulation
SNAP Header
Remote Frame Type
Category
Action Value
Dialog Token
Data Function Content
Octets: 8 1
Variable
SNAP Header
As defined in 11r/TGz
Remote Frame Type
As defined in 11r/TGz with new Data Function Type defined
Category
Specifies the type of data function encapsulation (i.e. event, diagnostics…etc)
Action Value
Specifies the operation of data function encapsulation (i.e. request, report, notification…etc)
Dialog Token
Identifies a specific request/response exchange or 0 if a notification
Data Function Content
Specifies the fields and IEs for the particular data function
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems

6. Remote Frame Type Changes
Jan 2009
Remote Frame Type Changes
Protocol Name
Remote Frame Type
Subclause
Remote Request/Response 1
11A.10.3
TDLS
<ANA>
Data Function
Reserved
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems

7. Category and Action Fields
Jan 2009
Category and Action Fields
Category Field Value – As defined in Table 7-24
Action Field Value – Dependent on category value where the action value is assigned
For Wireless Network Management
Event Request = 0
Event Report = 1
Diagnostic Request = 2
Diagnostic Response = 3
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems

8. Jan 2009
Data Function Table
Add a new “supported” Table to Annex U that defines which categories and action values are supported by the data function capability
Category
Action 1
Wireless Network Management
Event Request 2
Event Report 3
Diagnostic Request 4
Diagnostic Report
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems

9. Wireless Network Management Event Request Elements
Jan 2009
Event Example
Existing TGv Event Request Frame
New Event Request Frame (payload only)
Conclusion: Minor changes from action frame to data function frame are required
SNAP Header
Remote Frame Type
Category
Action Value
Dialog Token
Data Function Content
Octets: 8 1
Variable
Values:
Aa:aa:03:00:00:00:XX:YY 2
Wireless Network Management
0x01
Event Request Elements
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems

10. Jan 2009
Summary
We have shown a mechanism to perform certain functions on a non-AP STA at a specific priority that may be dynamically assigned either by an administrator or other means
This mechanism reuses .11 Data Frames and all of the benefits that it brings, including reuse of QoS mechanisms and fragmentation support
This mechanism minimizes the changes to the current TGv spec by defining a new encapsulation for an existing payload
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems

11. Jan 2009
Questions ?
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems

12. Jan 2009
Motion
Move to incorporate the normative text in 09/0046r0 into the TGv draft to resolve CIDs 135, 136
Yes No
Abstain
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems