Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendations recomendation #4

grenville armitage <garmitage@swin.edu.au> Wed, 15 May 2013 09:53 UTC

Return-Path: <garmitage@swin.edu.au>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB8BB21F8ADF for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 02:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.668
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PghvXA0knQey for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 May 2013 02:53:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gpo1.cc.swin.edu.au (gpo1.cc.swin.edu.au [136.186.1.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1B021F8A74 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2013 02:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [136.186.229.37] (garmitage.caia.swin.edu.au [136.186.229.37]) by gpo1.cc.swin.edu.au (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r4F9rA3U000335 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 15 May 2013 19:53:19 +1000
Message-ID: <51935B06.9050207@swin.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 19:53:10 +1000
From: grenville armitage <garmitage@swin.edu.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121107 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: aqm@ietf.org
References: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B850ECE@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <41E8D91E-658B-4B44-92D2-5EB0329781A5@ifi.uio.no> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B8512B5@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <20130507133724.GY23227@verdi> <51916F7F.1020601@swin.edu.au> <20130513234811.GI23227@verdi>
In-Reply-To: <20130513234811.GI23227@verdi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendations recomendation #4
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:53:28 -0000

On 05/14/2013 09:48, John Leslie wrote:
	[..]
>     Perhaps Grenville could send proposed text?

A small tweak to the subsection heading and the last sentence:

  4.4. Active Queue Management algorithms deployed SHOULD be effective on
       all transports and applications they will be affecting

  Active Queue Management algorithms typically are verified to work with
  TCP [RFC0793] and a limited number of applications of it. This no
  longer represents a sufficient selection of actual traffic. We have
  significant use of UDP [RFC0768] in voice and video services, as well
  as SCTP [RFC4960] and DCCP [RFC4340]. Hence, Active Queue Management
  algorithms should demonstrably work with all transports and applications
  they will be affecting.

cheers,
gja