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

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Tue, 07 May 2013 13:37 UTC

Return-Path: <john@jlc.net>
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 9C2D621F8FB2 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 06:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.779
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.779 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.593, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 BcWRvtLXjZxW for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 May 2013 06:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F3921F8FB6 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 May 2013 06:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 332E133C21; Tue, 7 May 2013 09:37:24 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 09:37:24 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20130507133724.GY23227@verdi>
References: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B850ECE@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <41E8D91E-658B-4B44-92D2-5EB0329781A5@ifi.uio.no> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B8512B5@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B8512B5@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: aqm@ietf.org, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
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: Tue, 07 May 2013 13:37:29 -0000

Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> On May 6, 2013, at 7:25 AM, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> 
>> ...sounds as if it would be the most normal thing in the world for an
>> AQM algorithm to make a decision based on the transport protocol,
>> which I think it shouldn't...
> 
> I certainly agree that we should not be making transport-specific
> modifications...
> My point in this, if you can think of a better way to phrase it, is
> that the AQM algorithm someone implements needs to demonstrably work
> with the transports and applications it will be affecting.

   Hearing no differing suggestions, those words seem appropriate. Thus
Section 4.4 might become:
" 
" 4.4. Active Queue Management algorithms deployed SHOULD be effective on
"      all common Internet traffic
"
" 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 other transports as well as
" TCP, and with a wide variety of applications.

--
John Leslie <john@jlc.net>