Subject: Re: [Int-area] review of draft-ietf-intarea-adhoc-wireless-com

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 02:25:20 -0700

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-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 19:21:14 +0200

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-masked]> wrote:

> 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.
>
> protocol design considerations would be very valuable, but also much more
> ambitious than our basic draft.
>
> 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.
>
>
>

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 04:44:44 -0700

Hello Bernard,

Thanks for the pointer to RFC 4907.  I haven't finished reading it yet, 
but the parts about handover and metric consistency already caught my 
attention.  I definitely think it should be included if there is another 
draft to discuss link quality indicators.

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 7/18/2016 10:21 AM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Those interested in this topic may be interested in RFC 4907: 
> Architectural Implications of Link Indications:
>
> *_https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4907_*
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Charlie Perkins 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> 
> wrote:
>
>     Hello Zhen,
>
>     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.
>
>
>
>         [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>