From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mailgw1.uni-kl.de (mailgw1.uni-kl.de [IPv6:2001:638:208:120::220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 085DC3CB35 for ; Wed, 5 May 2021 03:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.122.7.101] (rhrk.router.fg-networking.de [131.246.199.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by mailgw1.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id 1457fuZg066125 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 5 May 2021 09:41:57 +0200 To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <211C00F4-BAFE-4F04-B39B-CCFA76FB980E@consultant.com> From: Erik Auerswald Message-ID: <273096b5-1986-40ad-d169-db30b70a6861@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 09:41:56 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <211C00F4-BAFE-4F04-B39B-CCFA76FB980E@consultant.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1, tests=ALL_TRUSTED=-1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 X-Spam-Score: (-1) X-Spam-Flag: NO Subject: Re: [Bloat] Terminology for Laypeople X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 07:42:02 -0000 Hi, I, too, think that "idle" and "working" seem to be useful terms here. An alternative to "idle" might be "minimum," since this implies that the latency is not always at the minimum. Thanks, Erik On 05.05.21 02:14, James R Cutler wrote: > Jason, > > I find “idle” and “working” to be understandable both individually and as opposites in almost any field or endeavor. These terms also mesh with typical speed test instructions regarding testing under idle conditions without working internet applications. > > James > >> On May 4, 2021, at 7:02 PM, Livingood, Jason via Bloat wrote: >> >> Like many of you I have been immersed in buffer bloat discussions for many years, almost entirely within the technical community. Now that I am starting to explain latency & latency under load to internal non-technical folks, I have noticed some people don’t really understand “traditional” latency vs. latency under load (LUL). >> >> As a result, I am planning to experiment in some upcoming briefings and call traditional latency “idle latency” – a measure of latency conducted on an otherwise idle connection. And then try calling LUL either “active latency” or perhaps “working latency” (suggested by an external colleague – can’t take credit for that one) – to try to communicate it is latency when the connection is experiencing normal usage. >> >> Have any of you here faced similar challenges explaining this to non-technical audiences? Have you had any success with alternative terms? What do you think of these? >> >> Thanks for any input, >> Jason