IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] updated draft charter

grenville armitage <garmitage@swin.edu.au> Fri, 12 July 2013 06:11 UTC

Return-Path: <garmitage@swin.edu.au>
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 8E2E721F9A4B for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.706
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.706 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, HOST_EQ_AU=0.327, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
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 DEKlK+o0XFA6 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gpo1.cc.swin.edu.au (gpo1.cc.swin.edu.au [136.186.1.30]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865AF21F9A43 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:10:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [136.186.229.37] (garmitage.caia.swin.edu.au [136.186.229.37]) by gpo1.cc.swin.edu.au (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r6C6Alwb025399 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 12 Jul 2013 16:10:57 +1000
Message-ID: <51DF9DE7.4030103@swin.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 16:10:47 +1000
From: grenville armitage <garmitage@swin.edu.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121107 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: aqm@ietf.org
References: <51DE398B.2090103@mti-systems.com> <CAGhGL2BnTXuZejwf5C38MndMKbm+eM2ANWjJt+pwQFp89ECpFg@mail.gmail.com> <91b91547d0e717bf6376929bb55bf81f.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <02FA5F0F-C331-4000-A716-D074734F56D0@telecom-bretagne.eu> <CAGhGL2ADOzEbDxCnOSa0saSYJ_iQ4MFNLYjz+VyCmnFq8x3b=w@mail.gmail.com> <201307120156.r6C1uCC8026410@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <201307120156.r6C1uCC8026410@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [aqm] updated draft charter
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 06:11:06 -0000

On 07/12/2013 11:56, Bob Briscoe wrote:
	[..]
> 3/ "routers, ... include buffers or queues" Buffers and queues are
> not members of the same set (IMO). I don't think this is a picky
> terminology point. Can we adopt the convention that the buffer is the
> fixed memory allocation (hardware or software), and the queue is the
> software construct within the buffer?

The distinction would be an interesting one to make, but hasn't
horse bolted on this many years ago?  IMO, there's lots of history
behind the notion that a buffer is the space used to absorb
transient overloads (regardless of how implemented) and a queue
is a either a synonym for buffer or a particular subset (e.g. a
FIFO buffer).

cheers,
gja

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status