1. Management Frame Priority SG Input
Month Year
doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0
Sept 2009
Management Frame Priority SG Input
Date:
Authors:
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems
John Doe, Some Company

2. Month Year
doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0
Sept 2009
Abstract
As identified by 09/0817r1 using AC_VO for all Management frames is of concern
This presentation suggests the focal areas of the study group and proposes some ideas for the PAR and 5c
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems
John Doe, Some Company

3. Month Year
doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0
Sept 2009
Introduction
Management Frames are primarily used to control and monitor behavior of the clients connected to the infrastructure to ensure a stable, efficient medium for all connected clients
No one client should have preference over another
The AP provides the coordination point to manage the medium (“it has a central role in priority”)
There are some use cases and management tasks that can be performed using management frames at lower priority in certain environments without risking the stability of the network
Based on this, the next few slides propose some guidelines for the SG
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems
John Doe, Some Company

4. Study Group Focus #1: Use Cases
Sept 2009
Study Group Focus #1: Use Cases
The SG should focus on management frames that have clearly identified use cases that *can* operate at lower priority without affecting the stability or operational efficiency of the network
A list of management frames can be found in 09/0426r9
Action: Identify use cases and the associated management frames that can operate and benefit from lower priority options
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems

5. Study Group Focus #2: Benefit
Sept 2009
Study Group Focus #2: Benefit
The SG should focus on use cases where there is a clear benefit to customer environments with lowered management priority
It is important to identify use cases that *can* run at lowered priority
It is important to quantify the benefits to other applications such as VoIP and Video applications e.g reduced jitter
Action: Define in the PAR/5c a set of benefits/criteria that justifies the lowered priority for the set of management frames identified by the use cases (e.g. performance improvement by X%, reduced errors by Y%...etc)
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems

6. Study Group Focus #3: Existing Standards and Amendments
Sept 2009
Study Group Focus #3: Existing Standards and Amendments
The SG should focus on solving problems for existing networks and products that have a clear issue with high priority management frames
Mechanisms defined in the TG could be available for future amendments
Action: Focus of the PAR/5c should be on EXISTING management frames defined in base standard and approved (ratified or in-progress) amendments only
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems

7. Study Group Focus #4: Infrastructure BSS
Month Year
doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0
Sept 2009
Study Group Focus #4: Infrastructure BSS
The SG should focus on solving problems where the AP plays an integral role in managing the medium
Do not consider IBSS environments where each client has an equal priority to all other clients and has no authority to assume a higher priority
Action: Limit scope of the PAR/5c to Infrastructure BSS environments only
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems
John Doe, Some Company

8. Study Group Focus #5: Flexibility
Sept 2009
Study Group Focus #5: Flexibility
The SG should ensure that any mechanism developed for management frame priority can be adapted to the customer’s unique environments
No one rule of priority can apply to all environments or all customers or all times or all devices
Action: Define requirements in the PAR/5c to ensure that such a management frame priority scheme can be adapted post-market and per customer environment
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems

9. Study Group Focus #6: Security
Sept 2009
Study Group Focus #6: Security
The SG should ensure that no security holes or issues are introduced by introduction of lowered management frames priority
Action: Define requirements in the PAR/5c to ensure 11w/11r/11i security mechanisms are not compromised and can be introduced across all products effectively while lowered priority management frames are used
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems

10. Study Group Focus #7: Market Applicability
Month Year
doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0
Sept 2009
Study Group Focus #7: Market Applicability
The SG should ensure that any management frame priority scheme can be deployed to existing baseline devices to ensure maximum market appeal
802.11n is coming to market and will have a huge market appeal
Action: Define requirements in the PAR/5c to ensure the management frame priority scheme contains modes of operation that can be deployed on and newer shipping (i.e. 11n) devices
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems
John Doe, Some Company

11. Study Group Focus #8: Backward Compatibility
Month Year
doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0
Sept 2009
Study Group Focus #8: Backward Compatibility
The SG should ensure that any new mechanism we adopt is compatible with existing networks
For example, pre-QoSMAN TG devices that use high priority management frames all of the time should continue to be considered high priority management frames after the introduction of QoSMAN devices
Action: Define requirements in the PAR/5c to ensure the new management priority frame mechanism is compatible with legacy devices
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems
John Doe, Some Company

12. Study Group Focus #9: Management Frame Definition
Month Year
doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0
Sept 2009
Study Group Focus #9: Management Frame Definition
TGv and TGz have mechanisms to communicate management frames inside tunnels using data frames and associated priority
Action: Define scope of the PAR/5c to ensure that management frame content transmitted either directly (i.e. action frame) or over a tunnel such as a data frame tunnel is considered part of the TG
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems
John Doe, Some Company

13. Study Group Focus #10: Latency vs Transmission Reliability
Month Year
doc.: IEEE yy/xxxxr0
Sept 2009
Study Group Focus #10: Latency vs Transmission Reliability
Some consider “priority” to only mean latency of access to the medium
Some consider “priority” to also include transmission reliability
i.e. whether a frame is received by another client or gets dropped due to congestion on the network or within an AP or STA
Priority certainly affects latency and transmission reliability
Action: Define requirements in the PAR/5c to ensure that both latency and transmission reliability of management frames are considered in any new mechanism
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems
John Doe, Some Company

14. Straw Polls Do you agree with Focus Area X? Sept 2009 Focus Area YesNo
Abstain
#1: Use Cases
#2: Benefit
#3: Existing Standards and Amendments
#4: Infrastructure BSS
#5: Flexibility
#6: Security
#7: Market Applicability
#8: Backward Compatibility
#9: Management Frame Definition
#10: Latency vs Transmission Reliability
Allan Thomson, Cisco Systems