Hello Zhen, Thank you for your comments and your support.
A general discussion of link quality indicators would be complicated. In fact, I have become somewhat more acquainted with IETF efforts related to such quality indicators over the last few months, and I think more work is needed at the more general level which could make beneficial use of wireless links as an important part of the discussion.
Just to make a list of the various kinds of link quality indicators deserves a separate document in my opinion. Then, to go further, and describe the impact of such quality indicators on various higher level protocol design considerations would be very valuable, but also much more ambitious than our basic draft.
I would support the creation of another draft for this purpose. I think the subject deserves another draft, and I think the current draft could go forward providing a more solid step along the way towards fulfilling your request.
Regards, Charlie P. On 6/21/2016 5:35 PM, Zhen Cao wrote:
Hi Authors, Thank you for the work. I and my team read the draft, and have the following comments. This draft is much needed to be referred by engineers who design protocols for multi hop ad hoc wireless networks. The definition of link asymmetry and its implications are clearly captured in the draft. Earlier acquisition of the knowledge within the draft will help our engineering practice a lot. While reading the draft I felt the need for discussion of link quality indicators and imo a section on this aspect is warranted in the draft. May be the authors have intentionally decided not to project the link level indicators since these are seldom exposed to the layer above it. But more and more implementations have started (or are already) using “feedback scheme” from MAC layer to make decisions at above layer. Engineers need to careful weigh such options and not over-commit to such indicators. I ve seen implementations using LQI only or RSSI only to make decisions and getting it wrong. The indicators “individually” may not be fit enough to make decisions since they are hugely impacted by various factors such as interference (because of density), distance etc. Most probably authors find this out of scope, but I think some discussion within the draft will be helpful, or we need another draft to talk about this aspect in IETF. Cheers, Zhen _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
