- From: Cheng, Diana, Vodafone Group <Diana.Cheng@vodafone.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 13:13:10 +0000
- To: "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
- CC: "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com" <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
What is the use case for this? Many developers don't even realise the difference between latency and bandwidth... Also, latency on mobile can vary widely: when the radio has been IDLE and it needs to negotiate the link, you have an up to 2000ms added. If measured then it isn't an indication of later RTTs. Mobile latency is also shaped by carriers, and can change within a couple of seconds, in order to, for example, give momentary priority to certain types of traffic - like latency-critical M2M applications, or others. Moreover, constantly measuring these parameters keeps the radio in full power, and that is well, bad. Thanks, Diana. On 07/05/2013 20:45, "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com" <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote: >[sent not as chair] > >On our 24 April DAP teleconference we discussed the Network Information >API [1] noting that both latency and bandwidth are useful information, >and that in many cases latency information may even be more interesting >than bandwidth information. > >We also noted that it would be useful if different implementations shared >a common means of providing the estimates, so that applications could >have a basis for interpretation despite platform. > >That said, I expect such estimates may be implementation dependent - in >that case it may be useful to have an indication of precision. > >Thus we have two questions: > >1. Is there general agreement that it would be useful to add latency to >the Connection Web IDL of the Network Information API > >2. Would it be useful and possible to add information to the >specification on how to provide latency and bandwidth estimates? If not, >should we be including some sort of precision for the each of the >estimates? > >Thanks > >regards, Frederick > >Frederick Hirsch >Nokia > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-netinfo-api-20121129/ > >for Tracker, this should complete ACTION-629 > > >
Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2013 13:13:43 UTC