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

[grenville armitage <[e-mail]>]

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.)

cheers,
gja