Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-pie-07: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 06:41 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@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 E092F12DC76; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.947
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 2y1Zj8uyOSRn; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93C1F12D12C; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2608; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1464072088; x=1465281688; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=c6Y/cu9AP3vgl1FkFX3qOh0F1NXkc4BPL1D2UDSHvCo=; b=cysarODpKRFI8bSEo71IQi+OvpJA2iL9K5OXbMXpMDg5vT+W/2MnLvkf 1qyjecbgW/mftlMn1waAQsnEFx9Ab1a8w0u/CqpuimXsWD40R5oCQZuLA pqBf9egVTZ1chlfSvp3aEwXFG6snLa/XDi9LrR6J+md0sCFGrPKyy7ECE M=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,359,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="637620474"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 May 2016 06:41:25 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.84] (ams-bclaise-8913.cisco.com [10.60.67.84]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4O6fPGY027319; Tue, 24 May 2016 06:41:25 GMT
To: "Rong Pan (ropan)" <ropan@cisco.com>, Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
References: <20160519123034.17334.51236.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <573DDCC0.3010604@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <D368FE65.18891%ropan@cisco.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <5743F795.10008@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 08:41:25 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D368FE65.18891%ropan@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/oiinT2SW_ITb_AadD3ZWUNkh_lA>
Cc: "wes@mti-systems.com" <wes@mti-systems.com>, mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-aqm-pie@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-aqm-pie@ietf.org>, "aqm-chairs@ietf.org" <aqm-chairs@ietf.org>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-pie-07: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 24 May 2016 06:41:30 -0000

Dear Rong,
>>>
>> The ID present text says:
>>
>>    "Active queue management (AQM) schemes, such as Random Early Detection
>>     (RED), have been around for well over a decade. AQM schemes could
>>     potentially solve the aforementioned problem. RFC 2309[RFC2309]
>>     strongly recommends the adoption of AQM schemes in the network to
>>     improve the performance of the Internet. RED is implemented in a wide
>>     variety of network devices, both in hardware and software.
>>     Unfortunately, due to the fact that RED needs careful tuning of its
>>     parameters for various network conditions, most network operators
>>     don't turn RED on. In addition, RED is designed to control the queue
>>     length which would affect delay implicitly. It does not control
>>     latency directly. Hence, the Internet today still lacks an effective
>>     design that can control buffer latency to improve the quality of
>>     experience to latency-sensitive applications. Notably, a recent IETF
>>     AQM working group draft [IETF-AQM] calls for new methods of
>>     controlling network latency."
>>
>> This certainly needs to recognize that RFC7567 has been published and
>> that when published, this obsoleted the RFC2309, explicitly revoking
>> the recommendation to use RED in RFC2309.
>>
>> I actually think the whole of this para needs reworked - there's no
>> reference to RED itself, which seems necessary. Most of the points seem
>> similar to points already made in RFC7567, and it would seem wiser to
>> refer to these by section (if needed) than to write something slightly
>> different here. I suspect this is just a result of the AQM WG work
>> proceeding in parallel with the work in TSVWG, and could be easily
>> resolved.
I agree with Gory.
> This paragraph intends to give a brief history of AQM, in which RFC2309 has
> played a very important role. I do think we think we should include it
> here. I will change its reference as the following,
> ³Back in 1998, RFC 2309[RFC2309]
>      strongly recommended the adoption of AQM schemes in the network to
>      improve the performance of the Internet."
>
>
> I changed IETF-AQM to RFC7567 and added a reference to RED.
I believe you missed the most important point, i.e. explaining in the 
text that the RFC2309 is obsolete.
For example:

     "Back in 1998, RFC 2309[RFC2309], now obsoleted by RFC7567,
     strongly recommended the adoption of AQM schemes in the network to
     improve the performance of the Internet."

Regards, Benoit


>
> Thanks,
>
> Rong
>
> .
>