Re: [aqm] AQM and ECN in draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-11

[Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]>]

The present text is intentionally descriptive only, and ties-in with the 
bleaching text. I personally think this deployment advice is consistent 
with the intention of the AQM recomemndations, but I agree it is not 
specifically called-out in RFC2309.bis, and this reference therefore 
really needs to be removed in the next rev.

This is not the place to make a BCP recommendation.  If "we" get a 
chance, I also think the IETF should assert this using RFC2119 language 
in an appropriate future document.

Gorry

On 23/04/2015 15:15, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> I meant draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-03 (not draft-welzl-ecn-benefits-02)
> though...
>
> On 23.04.2015 13:56, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
>> Hi again,
>>
>> I still know I'm late but there are two more points:
>>
>> draft-welzl-ecn-benefits-02 says:
>> "Network devices must not drop
>>      packets solely because these codepoints are used [RFC2309.bis]"
>> and
>> "A network device should therefore not
>>      remark an ECT(0) or ECT(1) mark to zero [RFC2309.bis]."
>>
>> I could not find this recommendation in
>> draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-11, at
>> least not in the section 4.2.1 (AQM and ECN), but it should be in
>> there (and
>> should actually say: a network device MUST NOT remark, ECT(0), ETC(1)
>> or CE to
>> zero)...?
>>
>> Mirja
>>
>>
<snip>