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

[Dave Taht <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Eggert, Lars <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 20:04, Fred Baker (fred) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I would agree that it makes little sense to almost-simultaneously update and obsolete RFC 2309.
>
> I think you're vastly optimistic in terms of seeing an RFC out of the AQM WG-to-be :-)
>
>> 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.
>
> I think we should ship draft-ietf-tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest now, and figure out what to do with it and RFC2309 when the AQM is underway.

I do not support this draft for the reasons I outlined in:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tsvwg/current/msg12003.html

the least of which was the competing updates to rfc2039.

As noted therein, byte-congest might be useful if it were specifically
narrowed down to focus on best current practices for RED and came with
operational advice from an actual deployment and data from actual
traffic (rather than the theoretical argument at it core), backing
references for section 6, had updates for more modern protocols, and
so on.

and I'd made a few other comments.

>
> Lars



-- 
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html