Re: [tsvwg] New Version Notification for draft-baker-tsvwg-aqm-recommendation-00.txt

[[e-mail]]

Fred,

Comments below:

Section 2, pt 2
"Deployed AQM SHOULD use ECN as well as loss, and set thresholds
 to mark traffic earlier than it is lost."
- This is not clear, I agree SHOULD use ECN for ECT traffic, of course.
- I'm not sure about threshold question that sets ECN drop before ECN loss
 - I like the idea for various reasons (I'm not expanding that here), but
this isn't what I understand as the current recommended TCP ECN reaction -
which reacts to CE in the same way as loss?

We need to be careful that we don't suggest not using ECN can gain advantage.

Section 2 pt 3
- Again I agree, but not sure we can say this as a BCP requirement? I
think we should think about how best to present this.

Section 2 pt 4
- Agree and we also now have tunnel technologies considering ECN support,
so also these?

Section 2 pt 5
- Nice, but not not possible - so TCP without ECN  *IS* going to cause
loss and delay if it shares the same congested queue. The idea of defining
guidance on what to expect here is also good, and maybe a significant step
to getting a better understanding.

I note that RFC 2309 does recommend RED but importantly it did not
motivate it in the way that now makes AQM an imperative. It also largely
pre-dated ECN and certainly the experience in ECN implementation.

Gorry

> Folks. I posted the email I sent yesterday as a draft, for discussion. I
> welcome comments, and if substantive comments are made, suggested text.
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2013, at 12:48 PM, <[e-mail]>
>  wrote:
>
>>
>> A new version of I-D, draft-baker-tsvwg-aqm-recommendation-00.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Fred Baker and posted to the
>> IETF repository.
>>
>> Filename:	 draft-baker-tsvwg-aqm-recommendation
>> Revision:	 00
>> Title:		 IETF Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management
>> Creation date:	 2013-03-13
>> Group:		 Individual Submission
>> Number of pages: 7
>> URL:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-tsvwg-aqm-recommendation-00.txt
>> Status:
>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-baker-tsvwg-aqm-recommendation
>> Htmlized:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-tsvwg-aqm-recommendation-00
>>
>>
>> Abstract:
>>   Fifteen years after the IAB issued its recommendations regarding
>>   congestion control in RFC 2309, a major issue in the community is the
>>   issue that RFC addresses: Buffer bloat.  It may be time to update the
>>   recommendation.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The IETF Secretariat
>>
>