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

[John Leslie <[e-mail]>]

grenville armitage <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 23:37, John Leslie wrote:
>> Fred Baker (fred) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>>...
>>" ... Hence, Active Queue Management
>>" algorithms should demonstrably work with other transports as well as
>>" TCP, and with a wide variety of applications.
> 
> I see a difference between the scope of Fred's "...demonstrably
> work with the transports and applications it will be affecting"
> and the scope of the section heading ("...be effective on all
> common Internet traffic") or even "..as well as TCP, and with
> a wide variety of applications."

   I'm not sure I understand the distinction here...

   My main thought as I wordsmithed was that there's really no way for
an AQM algorithm to know _what_ "transports and applications it will
be affecting".

> I certainly agree that an AQM algorithm ought not necessarily
> be  transport-layer aware. But the wording above could lead to
> a situation where acceptance of a future AQM scheme is derailed
> because it doesn't "work" with some (yet to be defined) "wide
> variety of applications".

   I suppose the process could be "delayed"; but "derailed" seems
unlikely. But frankly I don't see much difference between the two
wordings in that respect.

> I prefer the wiggle room allowed by "..the transports and
> applications it will be affecting" rather than "...all common
> Internet traffic".

   To tell truth, I have no emotional attachment to my wording.

   (But perhaps this objection is to some other words??)

   Perhaps Grenville could send proposed text?

--
John Leslie <[e-mail]>