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

I have a couple of concerns with the recommendations of this document as 
they stand. Firstly - implementing AQM widely will reduce or even 
possibly completely remove the ability to use delay based congestion 
control in order to provide a low priority or background service. I 
think there should be a recommendation that if you are implementing AQM 
then you should also implement a low priority service using DSCP, e.g. 
CS1. This will enable these low priority applications to continue to 
work in an environment where AQM is increasingly deployed. Unlike DSCPs 
that give higher priority access to the network, a background or low 
priority DSCP is not going to be gamed to get better service!

Secondly, there is a recommendation that AQM be implemented both within 
classes of service, and across all classes of service. This does not 
make sense. If you are implementing AQM across multiple classes of 
service, then you are making marks or drops while ignoring what class 
the data belongs to. This destroys the very unfairness that you wanted 
to achieve by implementing the classes in the first place.

Simon

On 5/14/2014 11:00 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>   This draft is a work item of the Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling Working Group of the IETF.
>
>          Title           : IETF Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management
>          Authors         : Fred Baker
>                            Godred Fairhurst
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-04.txt
> 	Pages           : 25
> 	Date            : 2014-05-14
>
> Abstract:
>     This memo presents recommendations to the Internet community
>     concerning measures to improve and preserve Internet performance.  It
>     presents a strong recommendation for testing, standardization, and
>     widespread deployment of active queue management (AQM) in network
>     devices, to improve the performance of today's Internet.  It also
>     urges a concerted effort of research, measurement, and ultimate
>     deployment of AQM mechanisms to protect the Internet from flows that
>     are not sufficiently responsive to congestion notification.
>
>     The note largely repeats the recommendations of RFC 2309, updated
>     after fifteen years of experience and new research.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-04
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-04
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm