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

"Rong Pan (ropan)" <ropan@cisco.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 01:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ropan@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 514DD12D0F1; Mon, 23 May 2016 18:49:48 -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 6PDpZEaBmY-U; Mon, 23 May 2016 18:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2251812B029; Mon, 23 May 2016 18:49:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2165; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1464054587; x=1465264187; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=mcsXy70FqlizX2JDlCeSLCwsk1qUatLWtwbgVdZVpi8=; b=UotdkYtw264ezbG1ei8IWIMwYwXhX8UkeDjOTuwkCoDQpD7PN4MKv8Vt pfMuRV2Q4k9eW5TZJQUPpAc+VQWvVsv7uhQGTKN1tnEsZ5EDWL/Xj59Ip MH7Rf5VSzWBbZZTMhlrgjB/7PHGtYp9KnyOKyHs2W618nDcxKSZlu4E8r 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BPAgBsskNX/5RdJa1cDoMpgVm3b4IPAQ2BdoJfgzICgTk4FAEBAQEBAQFlJ4RDAQEEeRACAQhGMiUCBAENiDMBxAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEchieETYoZBY4dihoBjh+PHI9LAR4BAUKDMjuJASIdAX4BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,358,1459814400"; d="scan'208";a="276392299"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 May 2016 01:49:46 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-006.cisco.com (xch-aln-006.cisco.com [173.36.7.16]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4O1nkc9005191 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 24 May 2016 01:49:46 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-017.cisco.com (173.36.7.27) by XCH-ALN-006.cisco.com (173.36.7.16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 23 May 2016 20:49:45 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-017.cisco.com ([173.36.7.27]) by XCH-ALN-017.cisco.com ([173.36.7.27]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.009; Mon, 23 May 2016 20:49:45 -0500
From: "Rong Pan (ropan)" <ropan@cisco.com>
To: Gorry Fairhurst <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-pie-07: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHRsco/n/0Jo9goFEeHpIM14lC8t5/At8gAgAaAMAA=
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 01:49:45 +0000
Message-ID: <D368FE65.18891%ropan@cisco.com>
References: <20160519123034.17334.51236.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <573DDCC0.3010604@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <573DDCC0.3010604@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.2.160219
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [171.71.130.224]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <0EAB087A8A12D6438AEB423FA1C2695E@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/qGLnNTmF9mBY4VwNg750uBQxq7g>
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 01:49:48 -0000

>>
>>
>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.
>

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.

Thanks,

Rong