Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-07.txt

Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com> Mon, 11 August 2014 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.briscoe@bt.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 0D4C51A00D9 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:46:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.269
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.269 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, 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 9xgBtnTuGeJB for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hubrelay-rd.bt.com (hubrelay-rd.bt.com [62.239.224.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DD621A00D8 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 13:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EVMHR71-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.109) by EVMHR65-UKRD.bt.com (10.187.101.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 21:45:55 +0100
Received: from EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) by EVMHR71-UKRD.domain1.systemhost.net (10.36.3.109) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.348.2; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 21:45:54 +0100
Received: from bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (132.146.168.158) by EPHR02-UKIP.domain1.systemhost.net (147.149.100.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 21:45:54 +0100
Received: from BTP075694.jungle.bt.co.uk ([10.109.146.19]) by bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk (8.13.5/8.12.8) with ESMTP id s7BKjqYm022434; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 21:45:52 +0100
Message-ID: <201408112045.s7BKjqYm022434@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 21:45:51 +0100
To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
From: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
In-Reply-To: <ff5e927945a46a39559fbb25b0ede6bc.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac. uk>
References: <20140805101838.24981.28443.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <47c4f0afaec650af659401bf8a701596.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk> <eda4a09fc0e144ed99cf9af5f41b6f26@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com> <201408110909.s7B99U7v020486@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk> <ff5e927945a46a39559fbb25b0ede6bc.squirrel@www.erg.abdn.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 132.146.168.158
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/s8642m90wcE6J1m4p6a2eE7o9Hk
Cc: "gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk" <gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk>, "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-07.txt
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: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 20:46:00 -0000

Gorry,

At 14:45 11/08/2014, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
> > Suggested text, respectively:
> > * "The last two classes contain more aggressive flows
> > that can pose  significant threats to Internet performance"
> > * "The projected increase in the fraction of total Internet
> > traffic for more aggressive flows in classes 2 and 3 could
> > pose a threat to
> > future Internet performance"
>
> > Note, I've also suggested changing 'stability' to 'performance' -
> > this doc has nothing to do with oscillations, etc.
>
>+GF: Agree, this text was directly taken from RFC 2309… let's change it
>... but how about “dependable performance”? (i'd like to capture that this
>isn't performance tuning - but more expectation of performance.

Dependable performance isn't right. I'd leave it 
as just "...threat to ... performance".

Any protocol or algo that gives you k/N share of 
available capacity doesn't give you dependendable 
performance, because N isn't under your control, only k.


>——
>
> > Responsiveness is important, but I believe it is OK for unresponsive
> > flows that are small in relative terms to only be responsive at very
> > long timescales (even solely at flow set up - self-admission
> > control). This even applies to aggregates of unresponsive flows,
> > because they will tend to be deployed where even the aggregate is
> > small relative to the link capacity.
> > See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-congcons-02.pdf
> > (comments to the PWE3 list pls).
>
>+GF: I don’t see this needed in this draft.

Sorry, I was just reinforcing my point that "the 
sky is falling" language isn't necessary. I 
didn't intend to say there should be anything 
about any of the specifics in this para in the AQM draft.


> > Bob
>
>——
>
>+GF: I’m also considering replacing /congestive collapse/ by /congestion
>collapse/ which seems a more common term, as noted by John L.

Works for me.

Regards


Bob




________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                                  BT