From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-x22f.google.com (mail-qk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6B0821FD74; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 18:34:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qkeo142 with SMTP id o142so176699702qke.1; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 18:34:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=s/RDwqoJMDuQ3Pcepzw+oQXFgMtMoVkkK1/dEbTIH4s=; b=m8htSsMheXZ2KfBpPT4gVrL2Qrix2/RASnrraKyrCntih5/dnkbAAyPk9OsSdz7EM+ Df5+IZiEacsfDvmofiJjOcscscfpMnwvOWkrdEeGOED3u6vUjIf3ydjRm6cN+NVaF7w1 YcbgqodS5wD1Z8UcNGITvWzT7gjWa5pwQ6yqAIKr69HXpD1TeiT1Kmdzu9/mloAeY4OM V6mbB1ajD9INyhJXX9ApWkR2iVu2nrzxAxWensKmIjcPgH2F0dKCtEFky/9TRNycLv7j 0U9DaDCQnlHxZKaKn2EbPeFX93IFH1absT2CjfuoOE6cmct8BvwaCksXB9jJ9sKFIc84 Wrsg== X-Received: by 10.140.29.202 with SMTP id b68mr20496684qgb.2.1436405672373; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 18:34:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from richs-mbp-13524.lan (pool-70-105-232-212.port.east.myfairpoint.net. [70.105.232.212]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z135sm2530557qhd.29.2015.07.08.18.34.31 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Jul 2015 18:34:31 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Rich Brown In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 21:34:29 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <559B2513.3020909@isi.edu> <559B53E8.90201@isi.edu> <8CBE744B-CE0D-4C44-A4B1-C7FB27403E1D@gmail.com> <20150707181911.7759D208@taggart.lackof.org> <559D6DD7.9020806@isi.edu> <8F877E8A-6DD2-4318-B690-DF7395394037@gmx.de> <559D87E4.8010600@isi.edu> To: Sebastian Moeller X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Cc: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net, Matt Taggart , cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net, Joe Touch Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Cerowrt-devel] failing to find the "declared victory" in a current wifi router X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 01:35:02 -0000 Thanks all for the comments. Sebastian has indicated our direction well. = Here are more details about our process for making the Table of Hardware = less inscrutable. We are updating the Table of Hardware (ToH) of the OpenWrt wiki to be = generated from a series of "Technical data" templates. We have already = scraped the info from the current ToH into separate Technical Data = templates for each of the routers listed there (~912 of them). When = we're done, this will have the following benefits: - There can be multiple ToH's. Obviously, there will be the main one = with a selection of columns that show the most important info for the = general reader. We can also have a "Supported in Current Release" ToH, a = WIP ToH, a "Last Supported Release was Attitude Adjustment" ToH, etc. - People update the info in the template when they learn more. That info = automagically flows into all the ToH's - In addition, the information from the Technical Detail pages can go = into a router's "Details Page". The maintainer can add one or more = "datatable"s that select fields from Technical Data templates, and = display the info as a table in a router's details page.=20 - Each router's info will need to be maintained. If nobody updates the = technical data to indicate the router works with the (soon to be = released) CC, then that router will automatically fall out of the = "Supported in Current Release" ToH.=20 I wish we were a couple weeks farther along so you could see it in = action. (We have a prototype running now, but we're reluctant to open it = to the world, as it's running on a RPi :-) You can view the current = fields we have identified for the Technical Data template at: = http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/dataentry_template We could use some help: a) Please review the Technical Data template's fields, and let us know = if any are not clear. b) If you're terminally curious about or thoughts/process, you can read = the forum thread (!) at = https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?pid=3D282707 c) We need some help from OpenWrt admins to make some progress. I have a = ticket filed on dev.openwrt.org for three weeks with no response, and an = email to an admin outstanding for two weeks. Does anyone know a good way = to contact them? Thanks. Rich On Jul 8, 2015, at 6:16 PM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > Hi Joe, >=20 > On Jul 8, 2015, at 22:28 , Joe Touch wrote: >=20 >> Hi, Sebastian, >>=20 >> On 7/8/2015 1:15 PM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >>> Hi Joe, >>>=20 >>> On Jul 8, 2015, at 20:37 , Joe Touch wrote: >> ... >>>> The other step, IMO, would be two flags in the OpenWRT list of = hardware: >>>>=20 >>>> - a flag/color that indicates that the most recent hardware rev >>>> supports BB >>>>=20 >>>> - a different flag/color that indicates that the most recent >>>> hardware rev supports CC >>>=20 >>> If you look at http://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/start you should have >>> noticed two columns: version and status: status was/is supposed from >>> which version openwrt supports that specific router version is >>> supposed to tell which versions of said router actually fall under >>> the supported status. >>=20 >> The information isn't clear: >>=20 >> - does this indicate the openwrt version that first supported >> the hardware? or the specific version that is required? >=20 > Actually both; I assume it to be the openwrt revision under = which the device worked initially. Hopefully this also means that = revision or newer, but unless its popular hardware it might not be = tested at all with more recent revisions and hence might have regressed = back into non-working territory. >=20 >>=20 >> - for devices with multiple versions, this doesn't >> indicate whether the most recent version is supported or >> if the information refers to legacy versions >=20 > Unless you come up with a sure fire way to figure out the =93most = recent version=94 this line of argument is leading nowhere, fast ;) But = if you follow the link that does doubly duty as the model name in the = wiki you end up on the model specific web site that often gives exactly = the information you here require, which hardware revision started = working with which openwrt revision. Then again often enough even the = detailed version stays silent on this topic. A subtle call to action for = user=92s of that device ;) >=20 >>=20 >>> Granted, status are not filled for all routers and sometimes with = the >>> unfortunate label =93trunk=94 without stating a date or release = number, >>> but these seem to be the minority. Version seems to be in worse = shape >>> with lots of =93-=93 and =93?=94. >>=20 >>> By the way, you keep repeating the phrase =93most recent hardware = rev.=94 >>> as if there was a common repository somewhere on the web from which >>> to deduce what the most recent incarnation of each specific router >>> name/type is; as it stands this information is filled in by >>> volunteers, based on what version they got from a store/vendor/OEM >>> and their installation testing/development. I would love to learn if >>> you have a better way of collecting that information preferably in = an >>> automated fashion? >>=20 >> Sorry; to be more clear, I'm only asking for a different way of = seeing >> the information already on the site. >>=20 >> E.g., the Linksys WNDR4300 indicates support for v1 under BB, but = that's >> not the version that's now sold; when I click through to the device = page >> I see the information that indicates that the most recent motherboard >> version is not currently supported at all. >=20 > Let me be pedantic, the most recent version documented in the = wiki, there might be a v3 out there somewhere and we just do not know = yet. >=20 >>=20 >> I.e., I would have found the table much more useful if it had = indicated: >>=20 >> device BB CC highest board rev/support >> ------------------------------------------------- >> WNDR4300 V1 no V2/no >>=20 >> The BB column would tell me whether BB works and on what revs (and = could >> list more than one board rev); similarly for the CC column. >=20 > And that is a loosing proposition on a wiki maintained by = volunteers; as you have indicated yourself the amount of time people are = willing to invest in something like a hardware wiki is pretty small, not = necessarily for occasional =93spring cleaning=94 like it is happening = now, but rather the small maintenance work of keep adding new revisions = once they are discovered. Also what about DD, and the most likely = following EE=85 the table gains columns quickly that way ;) >=20 >>=20 >> The last column above would tell me whether to bother trying to buy = this >> device now. >=20 > You assume that the retail channel only carries the most recent = version, do you? Which is unfortunately not true=85 >=20 >>=20 >> All this information could be derived by clicking on the many devices = in >> the list; I'm suggesting a different organization that would be more >> useful to those trying to get on board and join the project. >=20 > I believe you will be quite happy once the changes to the ToH = wiki page that are currently in midair land on the wiki; as far as I can = see a lot of that reorganization is happening. If you want to contribute = your insight and expertise have a look at the following thread: = https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=3D56521 =85 >=20 >>=20 >>>> The current list is a confusing mix of information about very old, >>>> sometimes EOL (end-of-life) equipment. >>>=20 >>> What is bad about keeping information? Just because a device is EOL=20= >>> by its manufacturer/vendor does not necessarily mean it is = completely >>> out of the retail channel/ second hand retail/sharing channel, so >>> keeping information how to give such devices a =93second life=94 as >>> openwrt routers seems like a good idea to me. >>=20 >> Nothing is wrong with keeping the info; the issue is whether and when = to >> push it to a separate page. >=20 > Never? Just make the whole thing filterable, which I believe is = being prototyped as we speak ;) >=20 >>=20 >> Again, I do hope the feedback is useful. >=20 > I have a hunch it would be even more useful if voiced in a way = the openwrt developers/documenters community could actually see your = ideas=85 (as far as I know Rich Brown is the only one here working on = improving the openwrt wiki (and I am really glad he is doing it as I = like his documentation a lot, but I digress)) >=20 > Best Regards > Sebastian >=20 >>=20 >> Joe >=20