Return-Path: Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030519141834.0951b330@unixmail.qualcomm.com> Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 14:19:22 -0700 To: "Daryl Van Vorst" , "'Marcel Holtmann'" From: Max Krasnyansky Subject: RE: [Bluez-devel] Qualification Testing Cc: "'BlueZ Mailing List'" In-Reply-To: <001301c31bd5$3287cb10$1a01010a@baked> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20030516101849.0d55f0f0@unixmail.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" List-ID: At 11:01 AM 5/16/2003, Daryl Van Vorst wrote: >Max, > >> >> I sent the above quote to Cetecom last week. They responded >> >> saying that MTU isn't the only negotiated parameter. >> >> FlushTO _must_ be 0xffff for reliable ACL link. So far none >> of the profiles specified use of unreliable links. >> >> Support for QOS is totally optional. We're only required to >> support 'best effort'. Which means that even if they want >> something other than 'best effort' (i.e. they reject >> default settings) we won't be able to accept it simply >> because we don't support it. >> >> So I'm not sure what can be negotiated there. > >Ok. I'll see what they say about that too. > >> btw Can this fancy Merlin viewer export trace in plain text ? >> I'm too lazy to install that stuff. And it looks like I need to see >> what is it exactly that they request/reject. > > >Before we start the test, we must specify to the tester the parameters that >we'll accept. The tester will reject the first set of values, no matter what >they are. In its response it will send new values (which we specify) that it >expects to see in the next request from the IUT. Any updates on this one ? Max