IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rmcat] Wireless test cases

Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch> Tue, 16 February 2016 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
X-Original-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C18101B30C0 for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:08:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.007
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ybIrdn7g8ieu for <rmcat@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:08:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch (smtp.ee.ethz.ch [129.132.2.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFB531B30BC for <rmcat@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:08:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6A4CD9315; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:08:53 +0100 (MET)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new on smtp.ee.ethz.ch
Received: from smtp.ee.ethz.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.ee.ethz.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id XXZT-dRb+op0; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:08:53 +0100 (MET)
Received: from [172.16.42.38] (host176-90-dynamic.54-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it [82.54.90.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mirjak) by smtp.ee.ethz.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5876CD9305; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:08:53 +0100 (MET)
From: Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:08:50 +0100
Message-Id: <6902D83B-55B3-4D22-8B37-A71A89720DDF@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
To: "rmcat WG (rmcat@ietf.org)" <rmcat@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rmcat/QCjfM8lOvLgCtynjUxXFb3b2hfI>
Cc: Anna Brunström <anna.brunstrom@kau.se>
Subject: [rmcat] Wireless test cases
X-BeenThere: rmcat@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "RTP Media Congestion Avoidance Techniques \(RMCAT\) Working Group discussion list." <rmcat.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rmcat/>
List-Post: <mailto:rmcat@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmcat>, <mailto:rmcat-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:08:57 -0000

Hi all,

quick questions on the wireless test cases: 

First, who did already run all or some of the test cases, and which? 

And, second, should all the wireless test cases (both mobile and wifi) be part of the set of 'base' test cases for which we as a group would like to see results before moving a candidate document forward or do we need to even pick a subset of those?

Mirja

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status