Those interested in this topic may be interested in RFC 4907: Architectural Implications of Link Indications:
*https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4907 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4907>* On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Charlie Perkins < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
