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

[Martin Stiemerling <[e-mail]>]

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