Re: [bmwg] an ID for BMWG to consider

>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Kevin Dubray wrote:
>>The implication on IP devices is an important component to consider.
>>Anyone care to list those implications for the less than
>>802.11 savvy amongst us?  (It appears the proposed document hopes
>>that RFC1242 et al. makes that binding.)
>
>Here are just some quick examples off the top of my head. I'm sure 
>there are others:
>
>1. Throughput -- The air is a very lossy medium, and thus zero-loss 
>measurements such as throughput aren't meaningful. We should not 
>abuse the 1242 definition by attempting to label as "thoughput" 
>measureme

Apropos of air as a medium, doesn't RFC 1149 cover that?

>nts that involve loss.
>
>2. Delay, jitter, and other time-related metrics -- The 802.11 
>protocols acknowledge every single frame at L2 and also send 
>significant amounts of control traffic.

Headwinds. Sidewinds...

>
>While it's possible (though uncommon) to measure delay of individual 
>packets or instantaneous jitter from two packets, those probably 
>won't be meaningful indicators of how long a DUT/SUT holds up 
>application traffic. There are probably more meaningful, 
>WLAN-specific goalposts to be defined.
>
>3. 802.11-specific stuff -- There are some WLAN events, such as 
>roaming time, that existing bmwg methodologies do not describe.

Pigeon mating season, roaming...the resemblance of this to RFC 1149, 
much less the update with QoS extensions, is becoming frightening.

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
bmwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg