Hi

Yes. "Idle latency"  and "Working latency" make sense.

Note however that if you think of idle latency as sparse ping, then these sparse ping can give unreasonably high values over cellular access (4G/5G). The reason is here mainly DRX which is a battery saving function in mobile devices. More frequent pings like every 20ms over the course of 100ms or so can give more correct values.

/Ingemar


> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 21:26:21 +0000
> From: Greg White <g.white@CableLabs.com>
> To: Jonathan Foulkes <jf@jonathanfoulkes.com>, "Livingood, Jason"
> 	<Jason_Livingood@comcast.com>
> Cc: bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Bloat] Terminology for Laypeople
> Message-ID: <0A5DF790-7A71-4B84-A20B-559A5E0CE65F@cablelabs.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> I recently heard Stuart Cheshire (sort of tongue-in-cheek) refer to “idle
> latency” as “the latency that users experience when they are not using their
> internet connection” (or something along those lines).
> 
> I think terminology that reinforces that the baseline (unloaded) latency is not
> always what users experience, and that latency under load is not referring to
> some unusual corner-case situation, is good.  So, I like “idle latency” and
> “working latency”.
> 
> -Greg
> 
>