IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05: (with COMMENT)

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> Thu, 17 March 2016 17:11 UTC

Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E01212DCB5; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:11:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=toke.dk
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 kwCkgrpnlQ31; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.tohojo.dk (mail2.tohojo.dk [77.235.48.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC73F12DC86; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail2.tohojo.dk
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=201310; t=1458234609; bh=N4XsKeuVdlOf3P4z5fB3DDjTxIr2Utn5u1dm8JZFoVw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=anB+Z66vdMNemZDuJs/l58wfvIxx9VJkg4GHgZcv+k1r2a8ot6IRipsqpvlgkiZgA k7fWxHk/0PVjkUu9awaizYb7gyyIezPLpFuSddEj3GK53AMGl/rH/AbEB2TpeKxUxm 8u7aFisXH2eI2soPPJeWwI+0dQKd7nl/QSeXu27Q=
Sender: toke@toke.dk
Received: by alrua-desktop.borgediget.toke.dk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4D3F3311CE; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:10:08 +0100 (CET)
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
References: <20160317002541.15492.5207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:10:08 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20160317002541.15492.5207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> (Benoit Claise's message of "Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:25:41 -0700")
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <87zitxxc7j.fsf@alrua-desktop.borgediget.toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/ebf2h8SauZMiiRtgn5GSV8M3RQ0>
Cc: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel@ietf.org, wes@mti-systems.com, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, aqm-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, aqm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:11:57 -0000

"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> writes:

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Benoit

Thank you for your comments. An updated version that addresses them as
laid out below is available here:
https://kau.toke.dk/ietf/draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-06.html (or .txt).

> - Is the following really necessary: 
>
>    In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
>    only when in ALL CAPS.  Lower case uses of these words are not to be
>    interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance.

I've elected to keep this as per Barry's comment.

> - section 6
>    While FQ-CoDel has been shown in many scenarios to offer significant
>    performance gains, there are some scenarios where the scheduling
>    algorithm in particular is not a good fit. 
>
> Gains compared to?

I've amended this to read "..offer significant performance gains compared
to alternative queue management strategies.."

> - From Jürgen's OPS DIR review:
> The working draft still says this:
>
>   and we encourage such implementations be widely deployed
>
> It is unclear what 'we' is. This is something I think that needs to be
> fixed since people will come up with different interpretation of such
> a recommendation. (In a scientific paper, it would be clear that 'we'
> refers to the authors but in documents coming out of IETF WGs, the
> notion of what is 'we' is not so clear anymore.

Yes, several people have pointed this out. I've changed this to read "to
enable deployment outside of the Linux ecosystem".

-Toke

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email