Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-07.txt

Bob - those changes are aded.

> Gorry,
>
> At 14:45 11/08/2014, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
>> > Suggested text, respectively:
>> > * "The last two classes contain more aggressive flows
>> > that can pose  significant threats to Internet performance"
>> > * "The projected increase in the fraction of total Internet
>> > traffic for more aggressive flows in classes 2 and 3 could
>> > pose a threat to
>> > future Internet performance"
>>
>> > Note, I've also suggested changing 'stability' to 'performance' -
>> > this doc has nothing to do with oscillations, etc.
>>
>>+GF: Agree, this text was directly taken from RFC 2309 let's change it
>>... but how about dependable performance? (i'd like to capture that
>> this
>>isn't performance tuning - but more expectation of performance.
>
> Dependable performance isn't right. I'd leave it
> as just "...threat to ... performance".
>
> Any protocol or algo that gives you k/N share of
> available capacity doesn't give you dependendable
> performance, because N isn't under your control, only k.
>
I wasn't thinking that way - so I won't write that, I was wondering how to
write the opposite of lockout. Because performance is one aspect - but
methods to reduce synch and lockout are important also.

>
>>
>>
>> > Responsiveness is important, but I believe it is OK for unresponsive
>> > flows that are small in relative terms to only be responsive at very
>> > long timescales (even solely at flow set up - self-admission
>> > control). This even applies to aggregates of unresponsive flows,
>> > because they will tend to be deployed where even the aggregate is
>> > small relative to the link capacity.
>> > See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-congcons-02.pdf
>> > (comments to the PWE3 list pls).
>>
>>+GF: I dont see this needed in this draft.
>
> Sorry, I was just reinforcing my point that "the
> sky is falling" language isn't necessary. I
> didn't intend to say there should be anything
> about any of the specifics in this para in the AQM draft.
>
>
>> > Bob
>>
>>
>>
>>+GF: Im also considering replacing /congestive collapse/ by /congestion
>>collapse/ which seems a more common term, as noted by John L.
>
> Works for me.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Bob Briscoe,                                                  BT
>
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>