Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk Mon, 23 February 2015 09:18 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 90E9D1A0358; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 01:18:11 -0800 (PST)
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 b1Xc9meK_flt; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 01:18:09 -0800 (PST)
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 5D8881A014C; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 01:18:09 -0800 (PST)
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 3CA5E1B00199; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:18:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from 139.133.204.3 (SquirrelMail authenticated user gorry) by erg.abdn.ac.uk with HTTP; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:17:49 -0000
Message-ID: <9e5393f59950a047bdcc4cc5dde50259.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20150218224325.29443.89305.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20150218224325.29443.89305.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:17:49 -0000
From: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
To: "Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com>
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/KEauFBxzKDYTERBXKM1I3kUSmqc>
Cc: rs@netapp.com, aqm-chairs@ietf.org, mehmet.ersue@nsn.com, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation.all@ietf.org, aqm@ietf.org, fred@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: <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: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:18:11 -0000

Benoit,

We think we have resolved the remaining issues and would like to propose
text that we think could address you DISCUSS:

We think our point was that tuning should not be required
*in*the*normal*case*, not
that they should *never* require tuning (I'm not sure we have created
anything that
is 100% auto-tuning). I'm OK with his phrasing in both cases, but would
suggest the
words "in common use cases" should be added:

  3.  AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning of initial or
configuration
parameters in common use cases.

4.3 AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning in common use cases.

Please let us know your thoughts,

Fred & Gorry

> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-09: Discuss
>
> 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/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hopefully an easy DISCUSS.
>   3.  The algorithms that the IETF recommends SHOULD NOT require
>        operational (especially manual) configuration or tuning.
>
> This sentence above could be understood in different ways. For example,
> that any configuration is wrong.
> The ability to activate AQM is a good thing IMO.
> The section 4.3 title is closer to what you intend to say: "AQM
> algorithms deployed SHOULD NOT require operational tuning"
> The issue is that you only define what you mean by "operational
> configuration" in section 4.3
>
> Proposal:
>
> OLD:
>   3.  The algorithms that the IETF recommends SHOULD NOT require
>        operational (especially manual) configuration or tuning.
>
> NEW:
>   3.  AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning of initial or
> configuration parameters.
>
> OLD:
> 4.3 AQM algorithms deployed SHOULD NOT require operational tuning
>
> NEW:
> 4.3 AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> - RFC 2309 introduced the concept of "Active Queue Management" (AQM), a
>    > class of technologies that, by signaling to common congestion-
>    controlled transports such as TCP, manages the size of queues that
>
> Remove >
>
>
> -
>   Network devices SHOULD use an AQM algorithm to measure local local
>    congestion
>
> local local
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>