Re: [aqm] adoption of draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie-01

Greg White <> Mon, 30 March 2015 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E557A1AC3EA for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 07:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.125
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.125 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qx-gipJwzyiJ for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 07:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAF411AC3DF for <>; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 07:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (kyzyl []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id t2UEtB02003328; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 08:55:11 -0600
Received: from ( by (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/407/; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 08:55:11 -0600 (MDT)
X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/407/
Received: from ([::1]) by ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Mon, 30 Mar 2015 08:55:09 -0600
From: Greg White <>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <>, Szilveszter Nadas <>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] adoption of draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie-01
Thread-Index: AdBR0qmLD+JlLAXWSZym1tRD+kojwQXBCieAADEmzbAAVIyLgAAC+4mA
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:55:09 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <>, "" <>, Dave Dolson <>, "''" <>
Subject: Re: [aqm] adoption of draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:55:19 -0000


Thanks for the review and suggestions.  I will take them into account in
the next revision.


On 3/30/15, 1:30 AM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Mar 2015, Szilveszter Nadas wrote:
>> Hi,
>> You have an interesting process to encourage mic comments. ;)
>> Reviewed version: "draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie-00".
>Me too.
>Some suggestions and comments:
>    "They are commonly positioned at the
>    head of the bottleneck link for traffic in the upstream direction
>    (from the customer),"
>I find this sentence hard to read. I would suggest changes to the
>along these lines (I will include _ around the changed parts)
>"DOCSIS cable modems provide broadband Internet access to over one
>million users worldwide.  They are commonly positioned _so that they
>handle the lowering speed adaptation in the upstream direction_ (from the
>customer) towards the Internet, and as a result, the impact of buffering
>and bufferbloat in the cable modem can have a significant effect on user
>experience.  The CableLabs DOCSIS specification _(introduced in)_ 3.1
>includes requirements for cable modems to support an Active Queue
>Management (AQM) algorithm that is intended to alleviate the impact that
>buffering has on latency sensitive traffic, while preserving bulk
>throughput performance.  In addition, the CableLabs DOCSIS 3.0
>specifications have also been amended to contain similar requirements."
>I just feel that this makes it easier for a non-expert read by changing
>the second sentence to not talk about "head", and clarify that later that
>the AQM sections were introduced in 3.1 specification.
>Section 1.
>Here it says "CableLabs'" and in abstract it says "CableLabs" (without
>Is that correct?
>I would recommend to add "upstream from the customer" in the second
>Section 3.
>The list in 3 doesn't match the 3.1-3.4 headers, so my suggestion would
>to get rid of the list in 3 and just keep the 3.1-3.4 headers.
>Then I read A, and that seems mostly to list changes to PIE for the
>DOCSIS-PIE implementation?
>What is the aim of this document? To describe in an IETF environment what
>the DOCSIS-PIE implementation does? This is not stated in the abstract or
>introduction. I think it would be worthwhile to put in a few lines in
>either place to describe exactly what the aim of the document is, and
>potentially, what it isn't. Perhaps bump the overview from section 1 to 2
>and insert an introduction there?
>It's my opinion that this is a document that is valuable to publish as an
>informational draft in IETF-AQM.
>Mikael Abrahamsson    email: