[aqm] A few comments on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-05
gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Tue, 30 June 2015 13:37 UTC
Return-Path: <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
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 7840D1AD060 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 WRbAN-XUtwba for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:241:204::f0f0]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E5381AC3F5 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 06:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from erg.abdn.ac.uk (galactica.erg.abdn.ac.uk [139.133.210.32]) by pegasus.erg.abdn.ac.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B97601B001CC; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:36:58 +0100 (BST)
Received: from 213.174.117.243 (SquirrelMail authenticated user gorry) by erg.abdn.ac.uk with HTTP; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:35:53 +0100
Message-ID: <8aab5fa6c01456633729714827998a12.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:35:53 +0100
From: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
To: aqm@ietf.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/I7Xa5COd_IeFGKw4331PcvLI60s>
Cc: dros@simula.no, nicolas.kuhn@telecom-bretagne.eu, naeemk@ifi.uio.no, prenatar@cisco.com
Subject: [aqm] A few comments on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-05
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:37:07 -0000
Hi authors, I've just read -05 of the document and see much more clarity and precision, and that it includes most of the issues I noted. Thanks. There are a few minor comments (see below) that I think would be good to address. most of these are minor, and could be handed with any other comments in a quick revision. Best wishes, Gorry ---- Overall: /e.g./e.g.,/ Section 1.1: /in various scenarios to ensure the safety/ Im not sure this is quite correct, I suspect we may mean: /in a variety of scenarios to ensure the safety/ Section 1.2: /any AQM proposal must be evaluated/ may be better as: /any AQM proposal needs to be evaluated/ Section 1.4: /AQM: there may be a debate on whether a scheduling scheme is additional to an AQM algorithm or is a part of an AQM algorithm. The rest of this memo refers to AQM as a dropping/marking policy that does not feature a scheduling scheme./ RFC2309.bis (aka draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation) makes this recommendations and I think the text could be tightened by reference to this. For example: /AQM: [draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation] separately describes the AQM algorithm implemented in a router from the scheduling of packets sent by the router. The rest of this memo refers to the AQM as a dropping/marking policy as a separate feature to any interface scheduling scheme./ Section 2.5 - This section introduces SUT and DUT, but these do not seem to be used elsewhere, so maybe new terms do not need to defined? /highly RECOMMENDED/RECOMMENDED/ - I think the IETF keyword doesnt need another word, and it is cleaner if the keyword only is used. Section 3 /set up/setup/ - one word. Section 4: / It fills up unmanaged buffers until the TCP sender receives a signal (packet drop) that reduces the sending rate./ - Strictly speaking, this is not true - it applies to a bulk flow using TCP, not to TCP itself. /Not all applications using TCP use the same flavor of TCP./ perhaps should be: /Not all endpoints (or applications) using TCP use the same flavor of TCP. / /to the section 2 of /to section 2 of / 6. Burst Absorption - add fuel stop at end of the para. 7. /The available capacity at the physical layer/ could be better as: /The capacity available to the schedular/ /The scenario MAY consist of TCP NewReno flows between sender A and receiver B. / On reflexion, I think this is better: /The scenario could consist of TCP NewReno flows between sender A and receiver B. / (I dont think a keyword is appropriate here.) 10.2 /AQM proposals SHOULD highlight parts of AQM logic/ to / AQM proposals SHOULD highlight parts of their AQM logic/ 12. Interaction with ECN - We should probably now add some explicit tests for compliance here, does this help: Section 3 of [ECN-Benefit] describes expected operation of routers enabling ECN. AQM schemes SHOULD NOT drop or remark packets solely because the ECT(0) or ECT(1) codepoints are used, and when ECN-capable SHOULD set a CE-mark on ECN-capable packets in the presence of incipient congestion. SHOULD implement 12.1 /(ECN) [RFC3168] is an alternative/ - remove brackets around ECN. Reference - Please use a consistent tag style for IDs - this will be preserved when this is published, so be careful to name the tags in a consistent way. TCPEVAL2013 - Format? - Work in Progress? Conference references: please provide place of the conference?