W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: Questions and comments on CH

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>
Message-ID: <D3221068.2388B%goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
>
>
>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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 21:38:47 UTC