Re: [aqm] Comments on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-01?

"LAUTENSCHLAEGER, Wolfram (Wolfram)" <> Mon, 09 March 2015 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D2C41A88DE for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 06:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b4quWVNxHPGn for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 06:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10F6B1A888D for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 06:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id 8D5DB44443B40 for <>; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:32:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from ( []) by (GMO) with ESMTP id t29DWtEW023039 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:32:55 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 9 Mar 2015 14:32:55 +0100
From: "LAUTENSCHLAEGER, Wolfram (Wolfram)" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] Comments on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-01?
Thread-Index: AQHQWCGNuejJoxSvvUyrWTyxaXgTcZ0UH4Hg
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:32:55 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0A452E1DADEF254C9A7AC1969B8781284A7BDD12FR712WXCHMBA13z_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: Naeem Khademi <>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Comments on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-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, 09 Mar 2015 13:33:27 -0000


Bi-directional traffic is mentioned in section 3.1 Topology and 4.5 Traffic Mix, but not further detailed.

I suggest to add at least one scenario in section 4.5, where both directions are congested at the same time, e.g. two or more counter propagating bulk TCP transfers. Only in this scenario the returning ACK packets undergo a reasonable queuing delay (and jitter) from the opposite direction queue. If I'm right, Dave Taht repeatedly mentioned that scenario as critical. And he is right, I tried it out.


Von: aqm [] Im Auftrag von Naeem Khademi
Gesendet: Freitag, 6. März 2015 16:18
Betreff: [aqm] Comments on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-01?

Hi all

Any comments on the newly submitted update as draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-01 is welcomed. In the new version, we have tried to address the issues brought up on the ML as well as the feedback we received at the IETF-91 and have tried to incorporate them all. We have also clarified several issues in the text making it more straightforward and less ambiguous with regards to the "guidelines" and "scenarios". We would like to have this document discussed on the ML preferably before the 9th March cut-off date as well as during the period prior to IETF-92.