Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendations recomendation #2

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Fri, 12 July 2013 01:06 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
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 0A7E711E825E for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 18:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.425
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7NEHMk9LKGm9 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 18:06:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC0E11E826A for <aqm@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 18:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=609; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1373591186; x=1374800786; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=4wskEOHuhsAfRVcHFuR/yw5Few5EVJfZ5BJzFYIAZFc=; b=VGuTp7jgiVoZ5LJtvwPNPqoxQ7ip3RjiODQsc41/Bh/sqriJ+AlWnjeB qC/0g5a+9gERw4wSYnHamT4bg3eKmLtgB98XebvodQYbfPMU6vdiZprNb XPMyBP1Oez2gCoLfuYbET3Qy1tv6xN1rsTavqW9gkkLyYbhrRnqlPjwhI 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgYFAO9V31GtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABagwaBA4I/vxeBBxZ0giMBAQEDATo/BQsCAQgiFBAyJQIEDgUIiAEGtw+PLgIxB4MJbAOpKoMRgig
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,649,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="233821344"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Jul 2013 01:06:25 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com [173.36.12.76]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6C16Pd6024579 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 01:06:25 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.220]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([173.36.12.76]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 20:06:25 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendations recomendation #2
Thread-Index: AQHOfpwHTwWjyvZ3UEaBWpaxjnZQNg==
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 01:06:23 +0000
Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B93913E@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
References: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B82A5E5@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <517FF171.4010306@mti-systems.com> <CAA93jw708PAARKSQ_YZe68PX_WdHkdFHXDAAb=s_O7G44jhSpg@mail.gmail.com> <201307120015.r6C0FnT7026110@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <201307120015.r6C0FnT7026110@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.154.212.12]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <597205E6F0A8054F99B3BD65B2B80D72@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Question re draft-baker-aqm-recommendations recomendation #2
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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 Jul 2013 01:06:37 -0000

On Jul 11, 2013, at 5:15 PM, Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
 wrote:

> As an output of this proposed AQM WG, I would like to see advice that says what auto-tuning means, not just the empty word "auto-tuning", ie. not just using time as the unit of queuing, but also an AQM should not take a hard-coded time to respond irrespective of how much the queuing delay has grown.

I'm all for that. Maybe we can get the WG, if there is one, to add a document describing that, or add text to the AQM recommendation. Suggest text/approach?

I'd suggest perhaps discussing this in Berlin.