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

John Leslie <john@jlc.net> Mon, 13 May 2013 23:48 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 E356321F941F for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 16:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.372
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 LRninObcNUG2 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 16:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.jlc.net (mailhost.jlc.net [199.201.159.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF9521F944C for <aqm@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 May 2013 16:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mailhost.jlc.net (Postfix, from userid 104) id 9EB9B33C23; Mon, 13 May 2013 19:48:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 19:48:11 -0400
From: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
To: grenville armitage <garmitage@swin.edu.au>
Message-ID: <20130513234811.GI23227@verdi>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <51916F7F.1020601@swin.edu.au>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Cc: aqm@ietf.org
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: Mon, 13 May 2013 23:48:19 -0000

grenville armitage <garmitage@swin.edu.au> wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 23:37, John Leslie wrote:
>> Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> 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 <john@jlc.net>