RIchard,
All my points have been addressed, except one (below). Thank you, Fred Gorry.
The one about the 3 types of flows has missed my point in a couple of
ways, (A) (B) explained below.
Section 3 divides flows into 3 types:
(1) TCP Friendly flows,
(2) unresponsive flows, i.e., flows
Dear all,
We've posted an update of draft-kuhn-aqm-eval-guidelines. It's a minor update:
- a couple of nits fixed,
- title changed from evaluation guidelines to characterisation guidelines
as suggested by Fred Baker,
- tries to separate more clearly AQM from scheduling,
- changes on the
On 8/11/2014 9:45 AM, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
Responsiveness is important, but I believe it is OK for unresponsive
flows that are small in relative terms to only be responsive at very
long timescales (even solely at flow set up - self-admission
control). This even applies to aggregates
For reference, the draft is at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-aqm-sfq-implementation-00
On 8/11/2014 10:25 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
Based on feedback we've seen, it looks like there is significant
value in progressing draft-baker-aqm-sfq-implementation as a
working group document.
