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

[Greg White <[e-mail]>]

Mikael,

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

-Greg




On 3/30/15, 1:30 AM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <[e-mail]> 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:
>
>Abstract:
>
>...
>    "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
>abstract 
>along these lines (I will include _ around the changed parts)
>
>"DOCSIS cable modems provide broadband Internet access to over one
>hundred 
>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
>paragraph.
>
>Section 3.
>
>The list in 3 doesn't match the 3.1-3.4 headers, so my suggestion would
>be 
>to get rid of the list in 3 and just keep the 3.1-3.4 headers.
>
>Conclusion:
>
>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: [e-mail]