[aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-10: (with COMMENT)

"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 24 February 2015 10:05 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20150224100506.30747.44853.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 02:05:06 -0800
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/d0WKoSYNibXO7-OXglIqwQvFmjU>
Cc: mehmet.ersue@nsn.com, rs@netapp.com, aqm-chairs@ietf.org, aqm@ietf.org, draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation.all@ietf.org
Subject: [aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-10: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-10: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Gorry,

Thanks for engaging.
>
> Benoit,
>
> We think we have resolved the remaining issues and would like to
propose
> text that we think could address you DISCUSS:
>
> We think our point was that tuning should not be required
> *in*the*normal*case*, not
> that they should *never* require tuning (I'm not sure we have created
> anything that
> is 100% auto-tuning). 
If it was a never, then the sentence would be

  3.  AQM algorithm deployment MUST NOT require tuning of initial or
configuration parameters.

> I'm OK with his phrasing in both cases, but would
> suggest the
> words "in common use cases" should be added:
>
>
>   3.  AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning of initial or
> configuration
I believe that the "in common use case" is redundant (and somehow
confusing) with the SHOULD in your proposal.
SHOULD (RFC 2119):

    3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that
there
       may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
       particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
       carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

However, I don't want to be picky on that point. I'll let your
responsible AD decide.
My main point is covered. I'll clear that DISCUSS point.
>
> parameters in common use cases.
>
> 4.3 AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning in common use
cases.
I don't see this change in the v10.
There is an important word in here: "deployment" as opposed to "deployed"
in the current 4.3 section title (4.3. AQM algorithms deployed SHOULD NOT
require operational tuning)
"Deployment" brings to the notion of initial deployment as opposed to
"deployed".
This is the reason why I propose:

NEW:
4.3 AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require operational tuning

I hope you will include this change, but it's not DISCUSS-worth IMO.
Same remark as above regarding "AQM algorithm deployment"

Regards, Benoit

[aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Benoit Claise