On 1/22/2016 2:17 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Wesley Eddy <w...@mti-systems.com> wrote:
I do also (personally) think that if there's a desire to go standards-track
(rather than just experimental) with AQM algorithms, that having a fairly
explicit evaluation of the algorithms with regard to the guidelines would be
very helpful, exactly as Polina asked about. But I don't think this has really
happened, and don't think it's necessary at all for experimental RFCs.
As I recall the discussion, we decided up front that since there is no
interoperability requirement among AQM algorithms (the requirement is that they
interoperate well with TCP and UDP based applications; the AQM algorithms don'
actually talk to each other, and the point is to drop or mark at the right rate
and with the right pattern to encourage transport layer sessions to behave
well), we didn't need to recommend a single AQM algorithm for all equipment or
all uses. What we did need to do was identify some AQM algorithms that actually
worked, and give guidance to the vendors and operators on their use.
I agree with all of this. The characterization guidelines are aimed at
helping to identify the AQM algorithms that actually work, or cases
where they don't work as well (i.e. where some harmful or unintended
consequence results).
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
