[aqm] Ted Lemon's Yes on draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-09: (with COMMENT)

"Ted Lemon" <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 19 February 2015 12:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 035481A903E; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:54:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S9cPKZwTfEdp; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:54:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508FC1A87A2; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:54:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Ted Lemon" <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.11.0.p2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150219125441.21996.18652.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:54:41 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/6DBKOpA5__3vegGH7qh-quWN3dM>
Cc: rs@netapp.com, aqm-chairs@ietf.org, aqm@ietf.org, draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation.all@ietf.org
Subject: [aqm] Ted Lemon's Yes on draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:54:43 -0000

Ted Lemon has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-09: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm quite surprised that the introduction doesn't mention the problems
that high or unpredictable latency can cause with flows that are
attempting to do congestion control at the ends (e.g., TCP).   If I were
reading this without already knowing about that, I would assume that the
goal of this document is to reduce latency for the benefit of
applications that require low latency, like VoIP and gaming.   It would
be nice if the introduction made mention of the issue of high latency as
it affects TCP flows.

The document also talks about congestion collapse as a future risk to be
prevented, but I think that this isn't telling the whole story: users of
the Internet see localized congestion collapse quite frequently, and have
done for quite some time.   It's essentially normal network behavior in
hotels, cafes and on airplanes: anywhere where available bandwidth is
substantially short of demand.   I don't think this is a problem with
technical accuracy, but I think someone reading this document who isn't
an expert on congestion control might not realize that this document is
talking about that specific sort of failure mode as well as failures deep
in the network.

I'm really happy to see this document being published.  The above
comments are just suggestions based on my particular concerns about
congestion, and do not reflect any degree of expertise, so if they seem
exceptionally clueless you should just ignore them.