This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Networking Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

I don't think the current selection of "default parameters" is the most fortunate one. Considering the 802.11e standard, the given numbers for CWmin only apply to a the by-now-really-ancient 802.11b DSSS. For OFDM (802.11a/g) and also for the 802.11n MIMO, the values are different. I would argue those are more relevant these days, so I exchanged them in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flosch (talk • contribs) 10:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a discrepancy between the voice classification claimed for 802.1p (6), and the claim made by the 802.1p page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_P802.1p) which is 5. Is this simply in error, or do the two articles reference different recommendations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.48.62 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to try my hand at tagging that table entry as "Disputed". It's been noted as inaccurate in external sources such as http://www.revolutionwifi.net/2011/09/microsoft-lync-qos.html. Correcting it needs the attention of someone with direct access to the (paywalled) standards and a knowlege of their ammendment process such that we don't correct it to some obselete revision of the spec (sometimes revisions don't end up in the spec itself but in another spec entirely, sigh.) (140.232.0.70 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]

This doesn't sound right, there are maximum frame lengths, and once the channel is clear the station will have to DCF contend for DIFS time just like any pending station. Can anyone chime in? Teslacuted (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have removed this line:

"once a station "wins" access to the medium, it may keep the medium for as long as it chooses.^{[citation needed]}"

Teslacuted (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The diagram on this page shows DCF and EDCA as peers, but in 802.11-2020 Figure 10-1 on page 1630, DCF is shown to be a foundation that EDCA is dependent on. Packetgeek (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Also, the link to the cited work in the references is broken, but a search found what appears to be the same document at this URL on the Broadcaom site and that document does not include the referenced diagram "https://docs.broadcom.com/doc/1211168565875".Reply[reply]