Re: [aqm] updated draft charter

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

On 7/12/2013 5:31 AM, grenville armitage wrote:
> 
> 
> On 07/12/2013 16:43, [e-mail] wrote:
>> I think Bob's proposal is a useful one as we move to active queue
>> management.
>>
>>   I suspect we will need to make the distinction between the two terms
>> every document / presentation though to make sure people see the
>> distinction.
> 
> Conceded. Certainly worth trying if it helps clarity of understanding.
> I was primarily wondering if trying to say "..the buffer is the fixed
> memory allocation..." stands much chance against years of classroom
> dialogue like "What does a queue do? It provides buffering....". But
> I don't hold a strong opinion wrt the proposed charter wording on
> this point.
> 


I think I agree.  This is definitely a good idea to make clear in
a "terminology" section or something in one of our WG documents, if
we then use the words consistently following that, but given that
the existing documentation in the field muddles terms, it only makes
sense for the charter to define and use them with precision, if it
makes a difference to the scoping and understanding of the work.

That said ... in the next revision, we should try to use the right
words in relevant places, but I don't think the charter is the place
we want to carve any terminology in stone.

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems