Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-04.txt

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Fri, 12 June 2015 15:29 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 02C0E1A0381 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 08:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=no
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 jRnFjJ1t6gj2 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 08:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob04.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob04.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64731A0045 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 08:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.207]) by atl4mhob04.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t5CFT97d010906 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:29:09 -0400
Received: (qmail 28833 invoked by uid 0); 12 Jun 2015 15:29:09 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 24.166.126.82
X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.6?) (wes@mti-systems.com@24.166.126.82) by 0 with ESMTPA; 12 Jun 2015 15:29:09 -0000
Message-ID: <557AFABE.9030105@mti-systems.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:29:02 -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/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk, Mirja Kühlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@tik.ee.ethz.ch>
References: <20150505184955.17501.42937.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5578555C.9040907@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <f589865402b049f8a42dd63e7dc11287.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <1BA8826B-9EF6-4028-842A-7218B74D70D1@tik.ee.ethz.ch> <72b52beda2b04a01034482b71b4c4869.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <72b52beda2b04a01034482b71b4c4869.squirrel@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/Sze1Pkui-tz_MkXmzhhkXv4oyrE>
Cc: aqm@ietf.org, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-04.txt
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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:29:13 -0000

On 6/12/2015 8:46 AM, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
> Since we are already in WGLC, the WG Chairs probably will need to decide
> the scope - if this is changed, I expect will anyway require a new WGLC. 
> Hopefully the new ID will help.


Here are my thoughts, with chair hat on.

It's an Informational document (i.e. not Standards Track or BCP).  It
does have some advice about how not to break ECN, but it's not
altering or changing any previous standards or BCPs about how devices,
hosts, or applications behave.

I think it correctly avoids using the 2119 capitalized words (SHOULD,
MUST, etc.).  There are some non-capitalized "must" and "should" words
in section 5 when going through the high-level list of prerequisites
for successful use of ECN, and in my opinion, this is one of the more
useful parts of the document to summarize and bring the advice together.

There's definitely a valid criticism that it isn't particularly
specific about some details in this guidance, but I think that's
probably desirable, as some are still being worked out, and would
ultimately go into Standards Track and BCP documents from TSVWG or
some other working group.

I think as the AQM working group, the level of detail and strength
of recommendations made in -04 are pretty much on the mark for what
we should say.

Certainly people should let us know during this Last Call if they
feel otherwise.  It can be something we explicitly ask the AD to
confirm during their review too.

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems