Re: [tsvwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-10 - to conclude 28th June 2013

[[e-mail]]

The intended purpose of the WGLC was to confirm the final changes made by
the IESG. I'm happy to see discussion on these important topics, however
in considering this we also need to note the set of issues that were
raised during the original WGLC.

If this is in conflict with new individual submission, then maybe we have
a potential charter problem that should also perhaps be considered.

Gorry

> I would agree that it makes little sense to almost-simultaneously update
> and obsolete RFC 2309. If we are going to have a working group whose job
> is to rewrite the AQM recommendation, which is what Wes said to TSVAREA
> that he wanted to do (and hence my draft) at IETF 86, it would be best to
> collaborate.
>
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 9:08 AM, John Leslie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Gorry Fairhurst <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> This email announces the beginning of a short working group last call
>>> for draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest-10, "Byte and Packet Congestion
>>> Notification".
>>
>>   First of all, I wish to applaud the authors for expanding the question
>> of scaling congestion control signals and responses to include queue
>> length in time.
>>
>>   I agree with the authors that _when_ queue size cannot be measured in
>> time, the remaining question is whether to measure bytes or packets.
>>
>>   Alas, I do not agree with the authors that measuring queue size in
>> _payload_ bytes is useful -- the measurement should be
>> bytes-on-the-wire.
>> It is because of the difficulties in measuring byte-on-the-wire that I
>> tend to prefer measuring the queue length in packets.
>>
>>   But arguing that becomes pointless when queue size can be measured in
>> time.
>>
>>   Considering the current work in progress on CoDel and PIE, etc., I
>> wonder whether it actually makes sense to nail down the question of
>> what to do when we can't measure queue length in time.
>>
>>   Thus, I do not favor trying to finish this draft at this time.
>>
>>   If we do wish to finish this draft at this time, I have other
>> questions
>> that I hope we will consider.
>>
>>   I also note the Fred Baker draft revising RFC2309 being considered
>> in the proposed AQM WG. These two drafts overlap so much that I believe
>> a single co-ordinated draft revising 2309 is wiser.
>>
>> --
>> John Leslie <[e-mail]>
>
> -----------------------------------
> "We are learning to do a great many clever things...The next great task
> will be to learn not to do them."
>
> - G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936)
>
>
>
>