Re: [aqm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05.txt> (FlowQueue-Codel) to Experimental RFC

grenville armitage <> Thu, 24 March 2016 03:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C78E12D5BB; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.209
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.209 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R92kgY2lU9ov; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF50712D1A1; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:02:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id u2O31Hi8009241 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:01:17 +1100
Subject: Re: [aqm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05.txt> (FlowQueue-Codel) to Experimental RFC
To: Bob Briscoe <>,
References: <> <>
From: grenville armitage <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:01:17 +1100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000901060702010408080204"
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:02:13 -0000

On 03/18/2016 21:35, Bob Briscoe wrote:
> IESG, authors,
> 1. Safe?
> My main concern is with applicability. In particular, the sentence in section 7 on Deployment Status: "We believe it to be a safe default and encourage people running Linux to turn it on: ...". and a similar sentiment repeated in the conclusions. "and we believe it to be safe to turn on by default, as has already happened in a number of Linux distributions."

At the risk of incurring further wrath, and noting that the IESG did request "final comments on this action" (hence all the CCs), I think there's something to Bob's observation about the word "safe".

What about:

Section 1: "...and we believe it to be safe to turn on by default, ..." -> "...and we believe it to be significantly beneficial to turn on by default, ..."
Section 7: "We believe it to be a safe default and ..." -> "We believe it to be a significantly beneficial default and ..."

(Yes, this is going to be an Experimental RFC. And yes, turning on FQ_CoDel generally results in awesome improvements wrt pfifo. But the two instances of "safe" in draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05.txt do imply to me a wider degree of applicability than is probably warranted at this juncture. I just hadn't noticed until Bob mentioned it.)