[aqm] review of PIE -00 draft

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Tue, 17 March 2015 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
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 A190D1A8836 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:50:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 f-L_lHJWrtoV for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob08.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob08.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD2E1A8833 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.203]) by atl4mhob08.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t2HHo9T6021926 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:50:09 -0400
Received: (qmail 19614 invoked by uid 0); 17 Mar 2015 17:50:09 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 207.54.183.210
X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.112?) (wes@mti-systems.com@207.54.183.210) by 0 with ESMTPA; 17 Mar 2015 17:50:09 -0000
Message-ID: <55086943.4090206@mti-systems.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 13:49:55 -0400
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Organization: MTI Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/OYuBQ-XLqCYBgAaml5hCbLXlfW0>
Subject: [aqm] review of PIE -00 draft
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: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 17:50:13 -0000

I reviewed the PIE draft and have some comments:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-pie-00

The basic algorithm is very clear and I think it could easily
be implemented by someone else based on this draft alone.  Also,
the background information in the draft is pretty clear,
including the linkage with other documents like the docsis-pie
I-D.

In general, I think the working group should try to quickly
complete reviews and get submit it to the ADs for publication.

Section 3 on the design goals would be good to link back to the
soon-to-be RFC on AQM recommendations from this working group.
As I noted in the similar part of the CoDel draft too, I think
that the AQM recommendations grew out of these design goals
rather than the other way around, but it would be good to tie
the working group items together that are closely related.  Plus
I would guess that the IESG or some other reviewer might ask how
PIE relates to those recommendations previously published.

It might be helpful to encourage specific future work by including
a section near the end on "Future Research".  I certainly had a
number of thoughts in this regard when reading section 5 on the
enhancements.  For instance, there could be other auto-tuning
algorithms, sensitivity of the parameters could be looked at further
(especially with regard to the burst allowance), etc.

Note that the I-D template could in-use is missing some
important things, like an "intended status" header, which will
eventually need to be fixed so it can be submitted for publication
to the ADs.

Minor editorial comment: there's an odd line break or two in section
6, 3rd paragraph, when trying to say "beta = 2.5".

Editorial comment: "time-stamped" should be "timestamps" in section
6 in the 2nd-to-last paragraph on page 12.

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems