> PS.: I just spent a day at CeBIT. One guy there reported to that he has seen 35000 active devices on his WiFi snooper.
> I'm not quite sure what that means, but he seemed to be implying "at a specific point in time".
> Go congestion control that. And then "prove" that your solution works.
Bear proof ?
802.11 CSMA/CA does make sure that every participants gets so little bandwidth
in this situation that L3 congestion control is not the issue.
(I don't have to proof that i am faster than the bear, just that there is somebody slower)
> Somehow, we still seem to be deploying WiFi, nonetheless, and some even consider WiFi a success.
Its being used and continues to make money, and there is nothing else that works better
because otherwise that would have been successfull.
> Would your hypothetical AD waiting for "sufficient work was done" have approved WiFi? In 1998?
Do you think with your type of AD requirements we would have better WiFi today ?
Seriously, i think you're overthinking it. There are expert group participants, there are WG-Chairs
and there are ADs. I think this discussion circulates way too much around thinking that we must
shift technical expertise two layers up the management chain. Its a nice concept, it gives a warm
and fuzzy community feeling, we had the luxury enjoying it in many areas in the past, but it
does not scale nor is there IMHO any good proof that it works better than what i described
and what commercial companies exercise. In addition i would contend it tends to burn great
technical experts in the AD role. Yes, i can see how its cool to be burned fast with all the
stuff you get to see and judge in an AD role - for a while.
Cheers
Toerless