[aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05: (with COMMENT)
"Benoit Claise" <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 17 March 2016 00:25 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietf.org
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F421212D805; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.17.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <20160317002541.15492.5207.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:25:41 -0700
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/vwV7xK73AK0kfHu0Oxu1UQ_aJYQ>
Cc: wes@mti-systems.com, draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel@ietf.org, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, aqm-chairs@ietf.org, aqm@ietf.org
Subject: [aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:25:42 -0000
Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Is the following really necessary: In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance. - section 6 While FQ-CoDel has been shown in many scenarios to offer significant performance gains, there are some scenarios where the scheduling algorithm in particular is not a good fit. Gains compared to? - From Jürgen's OPS DIR review: The working draft still says this: and we encourage such implementations be widely deployed It is unclear what 'we' is. This is something I think that needs to be fixed since people will come up with different interpretation of such a recommendation. (In a scientific paper, it would be clear that 'we' refers to the authors but in documents coming out of IETF WGs, the notion of what is 'we' is not so clear anymore.
- [aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Benoit Claise
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-i… Barry Leiba
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-i… Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
- Re: [aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-i… Benoit Claise