Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 19 February 2015 12:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A3B01A8F42; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:30:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 ODogHBNZhbVN; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:30:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f178.google.com (mail-we0-f178.google.com [74.125.82.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73C931A889C; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:30:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wesq59 with SMTP id q59so7033985wes.1; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:30:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PsN634AtOtHW8KxwGmQa7z69Er7UG5HP6U7t4eA6o4I=; b=khQLZQLw7Obtdnl/LXTcEeO77huPiiTY6yqK25wn8K5OUhrP/vIwjKjlUsmhI8wVDk Yz1Hf+ol5CsLCLl7aEIZUn1rwQd/LGwPAAtfkwYHqvmde6BuC7fu4rAlWPrBbww+USzj 1MjZOzyY5I76ygpe8391pDry/arodKmGe9K3YdsXIozCU2GhsKg1Sw3inZdoCJOaN68J J9jjPzvIzpLUDbCi/iHJd9/W6+q/ZA6CT/Y44JX4fXxgNaeByXomUAMXW6rJ2IQISROe agiympvW8RhKWa95+ozDIS011516Z8xyLLvtT3hvm2VJUfr8TJT/B8QEy9y0sokO7vaj 9WKQ==
X-Received: by 10.180.107.71 with SMTP id ha7mr12773751wib.23.1424349036231; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:30:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Martins-MBP.fritz.box (port-92-202-26-143.dynamic.qsc.de. [92.202.26.143]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pp10sm37201827wjc.31.2015.02.19.04.30.35 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 04:30:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54E5D76A.7070603@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:30:34 +0100
From: Martin Stiemerling <mls.ietf@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20150218224325.29443.89305.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150218224325.29443.89305.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/oW-36aUWYmBA_LsPBJ6lMhMlXHk>
Cc: mehmet.ersue@nsn.com, rs@netapp.com, aqm-chairs@ietf.org, aqm@ietf.org, draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:30:42 -0000

Hi Benoit,


>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hopefully an easy DISCUSS.
>    3.  The algorithms that the IETF recommends SHOULD NOT require
>         operational (especially manual) configuration or tuning.
>
> This sentence above could be understood in different ways. For example,
> that any configuration is wrong.
> The ability to activate AQM is a good thing IMO.
> The section 4.3 title is closer to what you intend to say: "AQM
> algorithms deployed SHOULD NOT require operational tuning"
> The issue is that you only define what you mean by "operational
> configuration" in section 4.3
>
> Proposal:
>
> OLD:
>    3.  The algorithms that the IETF recommends SHOULD NOT require
>         operational (especially manual) configuration or tuning.
>
> NEW:
>    3.  AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning of initial or
> configuration parameters.

I do not see how your proposal is better than the original text.
The original text says that the IETF is not recommending any operational 
configuration or tuning. You proposal is globally saying that AQM 
algorithms should not require tuning, etc.

>
> OLD:
> 4.3 AQM algorithms deployed SHOULD NOT require operational tuning
>
> NEW:
> 4.3 AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning

I see even less why this change is required and it makes an even 
stronger case. The first statement says that tuning in operations should 
not happen while your statement is saying that in general no tuning is 
required (even before going for operational).

   Martin