Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-codel-03.txt

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

On 3/21/2016 5:10 PM, Polina Goltsman wrote:
>
> First of all our feedback regarding different "re-entering dropping 
> state" in the document and in the Linux implementation 
> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/current/msg01686.html) was 
> not addressed.
>


Thank you for double-checking; the editors should look into this and 
respond.


> As FQ-CoDel  relies on CoDel, this issue is also (partly) relevant for 
> the FQ-CoDel document. In the introduction FQ-CoDel references ns-3 
> and Linux implementations where the first one uses the re-entering 
> logic from the CoDel document while the second from CoDel Linux 
> implementation. The algorithm that has seen widespread testing 
> according to Section 7 is (I suppose) the Linux version. Is this 
> situation acceptable for an algorithm specification?


This is a good question.  I believe for "Experimental", it's acceptable, 
but greater clarity would obviously be good.


> /[since this comment was supposed to be sent before the end of 2015, 
> feel free to (silently) ignore it]/

Since there are still some things that need to be tweaked in the 
document, there is still time to make constructive comments, so thanks 
for providing them!// I'd like the editors to examine them and respond./


/
>
> Second, unlike Rasool Al-Saadi (see 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/current/msg01693.html) I do 
> not like the document. Although I agree that the pseudocode is 
> sufficient to create a working implementation, however, in my opinion, 
> the rest of the document makes implementing CoDeL more confusing (at 
> least without reading [CODEL2012] first). Is it normal for a RFC, 
> which, as I assume, should primarily contain an algorithm 
> specification to contain the algorithm specification ONLY in form of 
> pseudocode?


To be clear, the RFC doesn't need to completely "stand alone" (there is 
an Informative References section for good reason), however, it should 
certainly be internally clear.    I definitely think the editors should 
consider and respond to your specific comments that were below this, as 
they seem like they might help improve clarity.

Thanks for your feedback!