Re: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
On 5 aug 2008, at 0:10, Joel Jaeggli wrote: From the perspective of the panopticon that the centrally managed wireless controller model offers, some wireless users experienced fairly chronic issues, most did not. I'd love to offer the users in the minority a magic bullet but I don't have one. I suspect that if they have anything with an intel 2100 or with a prism 2 wireless chipset it's probably time to upgrade preferably with a fresh os as well... I was on the 5 GHz network almost exclusively, mostly by choice (by putting the ietf-a network in the list above the ietf network) but even if I did use the 2.4+5 GHz network my computer was smart enough to use 5 GHz most of the time. It worked just great, very good connectivity even during the plenaries. My 802.11b/g iPhone wasn't so happy on 2.4 GHz during the plenary, though... So good job having 5 GHz stuff in the first place and also as a separate SSID so those of us who are able to, can choose this manually and let the others duke it out in the overpopulated 2.4 GHz band. I wasn't not overly impressed with the room network though, not only the performance on some days but also that the network was dead on friday evening and saturday morning. Thanks to Eircom for their free wifi access point, but it really wasn't upto the task even with the small contingent of IETFers still around on saturday morning. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Joel Jaeggli > > From the perspective of the panopticon that the centrally > managed wireless controller model offers, some wireless users > experienced fairly chronic issues, most did not. I'd love to > offer the users in the minority a magic bullet but I don't > have one. I suspect that if they have anything with an intel > 2100 or with a prism 2 wireless chipset it's probably time to > upgrade preferably with a fresh os as well... > Many people do not have the liberty of upgrading machines or OSs at ease. Dan ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
> -Original Message- > From: David Kessens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 2:18 PM > To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) > Cc: Joel Jaeggli; Henning Schulzrinne; IETF Discussion > Subject: Re: Proposals to improve the scribe situation > > > Dan, > > On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 12:43:10PM +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > > > From Joel Jaeggli > > > > [ ... ] > > > > > have one. I suspect that if they have anything with an > intel 2100 or > > > with a prism 2 wireless chipset it's probably time to upgrade > > > preferably with a fresh os as well... > > > > Many people do not have the liberty of upgrading machines or OSs at > > ease. > > But is that a problem for you or for the network team ? > > There is a point where certain legacy hardware is just not > going to cut it anymore and I don't believe that that is the > fault of the network team. > > Basically, whether you like it or not, this is a problem > between you and your IT department (and yes, I do understand > that that is not necessary an issue that you would like to deal with). > > David Kessens > --- > I respectfully disagree. I would claim that the problem is one of the network team, as long as the hardware is standards compliant and not something exotic. An IBM ThinkPad acquired three years ago running Windows XP is still one of the most popular machines, it is carried by many people and will continue to be carried for another two-three years. As it is fully IEEE standards compliant and some kind of industry standard (whatever this means) many people expect to be able to use it at an IETF standards meeting. Telling people that they have 'a problem between you and your IT department' does not help at all, as most of the people have no influence on their company's buying or IT policies. Actually telling this means that we tell them 'you need to buy another machine in order to efficiently attend an IETF meeting'. Dan (speaking as an individual) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
Dear Iljitsch; On Aug 5, 2008, at 5:56 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 5 aug 2008, at 0:10, Joel Jaeggli wrote: From the perspective of the panopticon that the centrally managed wireless controller model offers, some wireless users experienced fairly chronic issues, most did not. I'd love to offer the users in the minority a magic bullet but I don't have one. I suspect that if they have anything with an intel 2100 or with a prism 2 wireless chipset it's probably time to upgrade preferably with a fresh os as well... I was on the 5 GHz network almost exclusively, mostly by choice (by putting the ietf-a network in the list above the ietf network) but even if I did use the 2.4+5 GHz network my computer was smart enough to use 5 GHz most of the time. It worked just great, very good connectivity even during the plenaries. My 802.11b/g iPhone wasn't so happy on 2.4 GHz during the plenary, though... So good job having 5 GHz stuff in the first place and also as a separate SSID so those of us who are able to, can choose this manually and let the others duke it out in the overpopulated 2.4 GHz band. I wasn't not overly impressed with the room network though, not only the performance on some days but also that the network was dead on friday evening and saturday morning. Thanks to Eircom for their free wifi access point, but it really wasn't upto the task even with the small contingent of IETFers still around on saturday morning. That was an accident, not according to any plan, and was not due to our volunteer team. Having said that, if we enhance the hotel network during the IETF, an end-to-end test after we remove any enhancement should be part of the future checklist. (In other words, in the future we should verify connectivity in the hotel rooms after the original hotel network is restored.) Regards Marshall ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
On 5 aug 2008, at 13:28, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: There is a point where certain legacy hardware is just not going to cut it anymore and I don't believe that that is the fault of the network team. I respectfully disagree. I would claim that the problem is one of the network team, as long as the hardware is standards compliant and not something exotic. An IBM ThinkPad acquired three years ago running Windows XP is still one of the most popular machines, it is carried by many people and will continue to be carried for another two-three years. As it is fully IEEE standards compliant and some kind of industry standard (whatever this means) many people expect to be able to use it at an IETF standards meeting. What are the limitations of such a machine? A year ago I replaced a four-year-old laptop that came with 802.11g built in. I don't think it would be unreasonable to turn off 802.11b support by now and set the multicast speed to 6 Mbps or more in order to make the 2.4 GHz band more usable. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
Dan, On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 12:43:10PM +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > > From Joel Jaeggli > > [ ... ] > > > have one. I suspect that if they have anything with an intel > > 2100 or with a prism 2 wireless chipset it's probably time to > > upgrade preferably with a fresh os as well... > > Many people do not have the liberty of upgrading machines or OSs at > ease. But is that a problem for you or for the network team ? There is a point where certain legacy hardware is just not going to cut it anymore and I don't believe that that is the fault of the network team. Basically, whether you like it or not, this is a problem between you and your IT department (and yes, I do understand that that is not necessary an issue that you would like to deal with). David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
--On Tuesday, 05 August, 2008 13:38 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... >> As it is fully IEEE standards compliant and some kind of >> industry standard (whatever this means) many people expect to >> be able to use it at an IETF standards meeting. > > What are the limitations of such a machine? > > A year ago I replaced a four-year-old laptop that came with > 802.11g built in. I don't think it would be unreasonable to > turn off 802.11b support by now and set the multicast speed to > 6 Mbps or more in order to make the 2.4 GHz band more usable. With the understanding that I don't expect IETF to support either my 900 MHz RoamAbout hardware or the FHSS card I bought some years ago specifically for IETF use, please note that the comment above is yet another way to increase costs to participants. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
Wow. I know I've spent more time raving at the IETF during the past 10 days than I had during the previous ten years, but could we get back to having a conversation that is remotely (1) on topic FOR THIS THREAD, which Marshall kicked off to try to improve the scribe situation, and (2) somewhat focused on getting the work of the IETF done? > > have one. I suspect that if they have anything with an intel 2100 or > > with a prism 2 wireless chipset it's probably time to upgrade > > preferably with a fresh os as well... IMO, Joel's observation here was reasonable. I read it as "ya know, if old technology is getting in the way of jabber scribing, newer technology would probably help", which seems fair to point out ... > Many people do not have the liberty of upgrading machines or OSs at > ease. IMO, Dan also made a statement I understand to be true. But pretty quickly after that, we went someplace very strange. I was astounded at the threads on the 72attendees lists where we came very close to debugging Mary Barnes' dietary restrictions, so I guess I'm not surprised that some people are coming very close to saying that if you don't replace your hardware and OS before the warranty runs out, you're doing something unreasonable. I carried two laptops for years at the IETF, keeping my IETF life completely separate from my professional life. I look forward to doing that again, in the very near future, for reasons that have nothing to do with technology. But people who don't have a personal laptop might also want to participate in the IETF. I should also say that my IT-provided laptop's three-year warranty expired in June, and I am filling out the replacement paperwork now, so this is not about MY ability to carry a Compaq Luggable from 1985 to IETF meetings and expect IETF-provided dialup support in the meeting rooms. Did anyone notice the plenary slides on where participants at this IETF came from to attend this IETF? We are getting more and more participants from countries that are not among the richest countries in the world. Those participants are often the technical elites from their countries, but they aren't always the economic elites from those same countries. I'm also seeing (especially outside the RAI area) an increasing number of self-funded participants who are "borrowing" hotel rooms because they aren't currently employed. Again, we as the community can choose to accommodate them, or we can choose to tell them that they won't have IETF network access if there's a more recent IEEE 802 wireless variant than their personal computer supports, but the culture we've had was to encourage individual participation, not just corporate-funded participation. If that is changing, please feel free to let me know. And have a wonderful week, of course. Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
On 5 aug 2008, at 13:52, John C Klensin wrote: I don't think it would be unreasonable to turn off 802.11b support by now and set the multicast speed to 6 Mbps or more in order to make the 2.4 GHz band more usable. With the understanding that I don't expect IETF to support either my 900 MHz RoamAbout hardware or the FHSS card I bought some years ago specifically for IETF use, please note that the comment above is yet another way to increase costs to participants. No it isn't. You are welcome to use the wired ethernet if the one-time $30 investment in a 802.11g USB dongle is the straw that breaks the camel's back. That is of course highly inconvenient (until the "wired ether for the jabber scribe" policy is implemented), but only for a few people. Several hundreds of other participants who have 802.11g (or 2.4 GHz n) but not 802.11a / 5 GHz n will be much happier because the network works much better. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
> > Many people do not have the liberty of upgrading machines or OSs at > > ease. > > But is that a problem for you or for the network team ? > > There is a point where certain legacy hardware is just not > going to cut it anymore and I don't believe that that is the > fault of the network team. Given the subject line above that started this thread, are you sure you are taking the discussion in the right direction? Demanding perfection from wireless networks is probably not the way to go, and demanding perfection from participants' laptops doesn't seem to be the right way either. One thing that does seem interesting to explore is whether scribing could be made easier by building a special piece of software to support the scribing activity. Such software could include a Jabber client that has some more robust features to deal specifically with the type of intermittent connectivity problems that occur on wifi networks at conferences, not just the IETF ones. The scribe could just keep on typing and the software would log every keystroke locally, and automatically log in and send anything that was missed. In addition you could add features to make typing easier as in "predictive texting". If you think of this in terms of "Meeting Scribe" software, not a special Jabber client, then it could have a bunch of other features as well, such as uploading the transcripts to a website, assisting the scribe in producing summary minutes from a transcript, downloading a list of meeting participants to use in entering the names into the appropriate points in the transcript, managing two Jabber channels, one with pure transcript, and the other with transcript and other chatter. --Michael Dillon ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
Spencer, On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 06:58:44AM -0500, Spencer Dawkins wrote: > > We are getting more and more participants from countries that are not among > the richest countries in the world. Those participants are often the > technical elites from their countries, but they aren't always the economic > elites from those same countries. I am way more concerned about the registration fees, hotel prices and airline tickets in the context of the cheapest, but nevertheless modern laptops being available for around $400 and even lower when one does a bit of an effort to find a good deal. Eg. even if one buys a laptop just for IETF attendance, it is not inconceivable that this will cost you $65 per meeting if the laptop last for just 2 years. David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
Well, I personally would not recommend that $30 investment. My machine speaks B and G (I don't think it speaks N, although the site monitor can detect that.) I had repeatedly awful connectivity. When rooms were sparse, (i.e. away from Convention 1, 2, &3 or before morning start) things worked great. However, in those main rooms, during sessions, I was lucky to be able to use the net. I could usually get an IP address. But much of the time I could not actually reach anything over the net. No DNS, no responses from anything I could test. It got very tiresome repeatedly re-establishing my network connection so that I would get something that worked. So I do not think that telling people to use 11g is an answer. And 11a has much to limited use for me to pay extra to have it included in my laptop. Just what it looks like to me, Yours, Joel Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: On 5 aug 2008, at 13:52, John C Klensin wrote: I don't think it would be unreasonable to turn off 802.11b support by now and set the multicast speed to 6 Mbps or more in order to make the 2.4 GHz band more usable. With the understanding that I don't expect IETF to support either my 900 MHz RoamAbout hardware or the FHSS card I bought some years ago specifically for IETF use, please note that the comment above is yet another way to increase costs to participants. No it isn't. You are welcome to use the wired ethernet if the one-time $30 investment in a 802.11g USB dongle is the straw that breaks the camel's back. That is of course highly inconvenient (until the "wired ether for the jabber scribe" policy is implemented), but only for a few people. Several hundreds of other participants who have 802.11g (or 2.4 GHz n) but not 802.11a / 5 GHz n will be much happier because the network works much better. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
On 5 aug 2008, at 16:53, Joel M. Halpern wrote: Well, I personally would not recommend that $30 investment. My machine speaks B and G (I don't think it speaks N, although the site monitor can detect that.) I had repeatedly awful connectivity. So I do not think that telling people to use 11g is an answer. There are three issues. Two are immediately dependent on support for 802.11b and one is mostly unrelated. Issue 1: 802.11b stations must send and receive at a maximum of 11 Mbps, which is only 20% of the speed of a 802.11g station. The former can reach a throughput of about 700 kilobytes/sec on a good day, the latter 3 MB/ sec. So a b user using 175 kB/sec uses up 25% of the total channel capacity but if that user upgrades to g, it's only 6% of the total channel capacity. So fewer b users means more capacity for everyone else. Issue 2: 802.11g and n stations use encodings that 802.11b stations don't understand. To avoid collisions, whenever a b station is present on the channel, g stations use an extra two-packet exchange to reserve the channel before sending the actual data. This reduces 802.11g performance by about 50%. Issue 3: In order to make sure that everyone receives all broadcasts and multicasts (which is a significant amount of traffic on a network with hundreds of nodes that are all ARPing, DHCPing, RAing and many use multicast DNS), these are sent at a very low speed, typically 2 Mbps. This speed can usually be set higher at the expense of some reliability. So using 802.11g won't help an individual user much, but moving as many users as possible to 802.11g will help some, and turning off 802.11b support will probably help a lot. Increasing broadcast speed will also help. And 11a has much to limited use for me to pay extra to have it included in my laptop. Well, it gets you fast and reliable connectivity at IETF meetings... ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [Capwap] [Gen-art] IETF LC review:draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-07
Great. I had forgotten to mention that I had created tracker #174 for this issue. I will mark this one resolved. PatC -Original Message- From: Joel M. Halpern [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 6:42 PM To: Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; IETF discussion list Subject: Re: [Capwap] [Gen-art] IETF LC review:draft-ietf-capwap-protocol-binding-ieee80211-07 Thank you. Those changes address my concerns very well. Please work with your document shepherd to determine when a new draft should be produced with those changes. I appreciate your prompt response, Joel Pat Calhoun (pacalhou) wrote: > Thanks for your review, Joel. Please see my comments below. > > > Question: > The document (in section 2.5) calls for specific DSCP values (46 and > 34) to be used on management frames. Two questions: > Is this the decimal value of the 6 bit DSCP field, or the decimal > value of the 8 bit ToS field, or a hex value? > More important question: The DSCP RFCs make it very clear that the > meanings of DSCP values are locally defined by network operators. As > such, shouldn't this be defined in terms of the intend PHB, not the > DSCP? I.e. define the desired behavioral treatment, and indicate the > common code point used to represent that treatment? If the meanings > of these code points in this environment is standardized, then there > MUST be a reference so that a reader can figure out what that standard is. > > Fair comment. I would propose the following text: > > > 2.6. Quality of Service for IEEE 802.11 MAC Management Messages > >It is recommended that IEEE 802.11 MAC Management frames be sent by >both the AC and the WTP with appropriate Quality of Service values, >listed below, to ensure that congestion in the network minimizes >occurrences of packet loss. > >802.1p: The precedence value of 7 (decimal) SHOULD be used for all > IEEE 802.11 MAC management frames, except for Probe Requests which > SHOULD use 4. > >DSCP: All IEEE 802.11 MAC management frames SHOULD use the > Expedited Forwarding per-hop behavior (see [RFC2598]), while IEEE > 802.11 Probe Requests should use the Low Drop Assured Forwarding > per-hop behavior (see [RFC2598]). > > > Confusion: > In section 6.9 describing the Multi-Domain Capability, the text > refers to "the associated domain country string" There is no domain > country string in the particular information element being defined. > And there appears to be no domain country string defined elsewhere in > the document. So what is the "associated domain country string", how > is it associated, and how is the implementor supposed to know what is > meant? > (There are lots of explicit cross-references to the IEEE specs for the > fields being sent. But no reference at all for the domain country > string.) > > Thanks for pointing this out. I have modified the text to > include a reference to the "IEEE 802.11 WTP Radio Configuration" > message element, where the Country String can be found. > > Minor: > If it is necessary to revise the document, it would be a good idea to > do > > some work on the Introduction. This document, which provides the > protocol bindings, should actually explain what it means to provide > the protocol bindings. The reader should not be left to guess. I > suspect the WG felt that the sentence beginning "Use of CAPWAP control > message fields ..." covers the issue. It hints at it. A sentence or > two (assuming I have properly inferred the goal) stating that binding > consists of defining how a the CAPWAP protocol is to be used with a > specific technology, would solve this concern. > > While I suspect that anyone reading this particular document > would have read the base, and be familiar with the protocol concepts, > it still doesn't hurt to be a tad clearer in the introduction. I would > propose some small modifications, which would result in the following: > > > 1. Introduction > >The CAPWAP protocol [I-D.ietf-capwap-protocol-specification] defines >an extensible protocol to allow an Access Controller to manage >wireless agnostic Wireless Termination Points. The CAPWAP protocol >itself does not include any specific wireless technologies, but >instead relies on binding specification to extend the technology to a >particular wireless technology. > >This specification defines the Control And Provisioning of Wireless >Access Points (CAPWAP) Protocol Binding Specification for use with >the IEEE 802.11 Wireless Local Area Network protocol. Use of CAPWAP >control message fields, new control messages and message elements are >defined. The minimum required definitions for a binding-specific >Statistics message element, Station message element, and WTP Radio >Information message element are included.
Re: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: -Original Message- From: David Kessens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 2:18 PM To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) Cc: Joel Jaeggli; Henning Schulzrinne; IETF Discussion Subject: Re: Proposals to improve the scribe situation Dan, On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 12:43:10PM +0200, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: From Joel Jaeggli [ ... ] have one. I suspect that if they have anything with an intel 2100 or with a prism 2 wireless chipset it's probably time to upgrade preferably with a fresh os as well... Many people do not have the liberty of upgrading machines or OSs at ease. But is that a problem for you or for the network team ? There is a point where certain legacy hardware is just not going to cut it anymore and I don't believe that that is the fault of the network team. Basically, whether you like it or not, this is a problem between you and your IT department (and yes, I do understand that that is not necessary an issue that you would like to deal with). David Kessens --- I respectfully disagree. I would claim that the problem is one of the network team, as long as the hardware is standards compliant and not something exotic. The early ipw2100 driver/firmware combo has some serious quality (roaming without dissasociating, keying up and transmitting from power save mode without listening to the air etc) if there still people running it then they aren't doing themselves or us (the APs) any favors. That's not something we could do about from the air short of blacklisting clients that exhibit that behavior. An IBM ThinkPad acquired three years ago running Windows XP is still one of the most popular machines, it is carried by many people and will continue to be carried for another two-three years. As it is fully IEEE standards compliant and some kind of industry standard (whatever this means) many people expect to be able to use it at an IETF standards meeting. That's fine and we're not going to stop supporting it, but there's a limit within the engineering constraints we are faced with as to how well we can make it work. investing in a b/g radio or an a/b/g radio or an a/b/g/n will result in a more reliable experience in this enivironment. Telling people that they have 'a problem between you and your IT department' does not help at all, as most of the people have no influence on their company's buying or IT policies. Actually telling this means that we tell them 'you need to buy another machine in order to efficiently attend an IETF meeting'. Odds are you'll have a better experience. not doing so won't preclude access. Dan (speaking as an individual) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
Joel, On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 10:53:08AM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > > So I do not think that telling people to use 11g is an answer. And 11a has > much to limited use for me to pay extra to have it included in my laptop. It is not hard to find 11a capable minipci or pccards that sell for less than what shipping of the card costs. I cannot speak for you, but these are prices I stop using words like "investment" but instead you could consider just buying one as an experiment and see how far it gets you. David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
I used 802.11a (on a PowerBook Pro) in Dublin, and it didn't help with the Jabber server flakiness. Otherwise (ssh, etc.), it was rock-solid. On Aug 5, 2008, at 3:53 PM, David Kessens wrote: Joel, On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 10:53:08AM -0400, Joel M. Halpern wrote: So I do not think that telling people to use 11g is an answer. And 11a has much to limited use for me to pay extra to have it included in my laptop. It is not hard to find 11a capable minipci or pccards that sell for less than what shipping of the card costs. I cannot speak for you, but these are prices I stop using words like "investment" but instead you could consider just buying one as an experiment and see how far it gets you. David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Proposals to improve the scribe situation
Joel M. Halpern wrote: So I do not think that telling people to use 11g is an answer. And 11a has much to limited use for me to pay extra to have it included in my laptop. Strickly speaking, 8 indoor and 3 outdoor non-overlapping channels coupled with better attenuation makes the map coloring problem a lot easier than only 3 (or 4 in .jp). Magic bullets are not in the toolkit. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73
David: I support this experiment. Why short sessions? Why not longer sessions? The reason for short sessions is that the Secretariat can assign adjacent slots to the same WG to create a long one if that is what is needed. Russ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
