- From: Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 21:37:17 +0000
- To: Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@gmail.com>
- CC: HTTPWG <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> > >Well, the way we defined it [1] is: >- in absence of any other signals, we would use the theoretical max DL >rate >- if we can refine the upper bound (e.g. WiFi drivers do communicate max >rate based on RSSI), then we would communicate that value > > >As such, the intent is to communicate the upper bound (with respect to >first network hop) to the best of our abilities. Right. The probability of the theoretical downlink rate to be anywhere near the actual one is often pretty low. Now even if making educated guesses is tricky in wireless (unless one uses QoS stuff), then it’s at least more closer to the actual rate than the theoretical (marketing) download rate. This means the server may want to act differently depending on whether it’s the theoretical downlink rate or an educated guess/estimate/prediction of the client since these vary in terms of likelihood of being an actual representation of what the DL bitrate will be. Now server could deduce that by also keeping a list of the theoretical rates given in [1] and assuming when DL rate == any_of_theoretical then client has not other info. Making the difference clear in the DL Hint could be useful. But this is not necessarily a major thing. More food for thought at this stage. > > >[1] >http://w3c.github.io/netinfo/#underlying-connection-technology ><http://w3c.github.io/netinfo/#underlying-connection-technology> > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 21:38:44 UTC