)
Cc: Fred Baker (fred); John Leslie; aqm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [aqm] Obsoleting RFC 2309
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid)
shahid.akh...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote:
Hi Fred, All,
Let me an additional thought to this issue.
Given that (W)RED has been deployed extensively
[mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred)
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 1:23 PM
To: Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid)
Cc: John Leslie; aqm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [aqm] Obsoleting RFC 2309
On Jul 14, 2014, at 11:08 AM, Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid)
shahid.akh...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote:
Hi Fred, All
-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred)
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 2:06 AM
To: John Leslie
Cc: aqm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [aqm] Obsoleting RFC 2309
On Jul 3, 2014, at 10:22 AM, John Leslie j...@jlc.net wrote:
It would be possible for someone to argue that restating a
recommendation from
Subject: Re: [aqm] Obsoleting RFC 2309
On Jul 3, 2014, at 10:22 AM, John Leslie j...@jlc.net wrote:
It would be possible for someone to argue that restating a
recommendation from another document weakens both statements; but I
disagree: We should clearly state what we mean
and not use WRED.
-Shahid.
-Original Message-
From: aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred)
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 2:06 AM
To: John Leslie
Cc: aqm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [aqm] Obsoleting RFC 2309
On Jul 3, 2014, at 10:22 AM, John Leslie j...@jlc.net wrote
Just to keep people on the same page, the latest version is -06.
Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Jul 1, 2014, at 5:24 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
As I said yesterday, I am scratching my head on what it means to
obsolete or update a document, and how that might
Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
... We also carried the recommendation into the draft:
4.4. AQM algorithms SHOULD respond to measured congestion, not
application profiles.
...
An AQM algorithm should not deliberately try to prejudice the size of
packet that
Hi Wes,
Can you share the update/text that John Leslie had suggested which Fred
mentions in his comment.
Thanks,
-Shahid.
-Original Message-
From: aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wesley Eddy
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 4:27 PM
To: aqm@ietf.org
Subject: [aqm] Obsoleting
On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid)
shahid.akh...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote:
Hi Wes,
Can you share the update/text that John Leslie had suggested which Fred
mentions in his comment.
Thanks,
-Shahid.
I have attached the text John sent yesterday. It is derived from
On Jul 1, 2014, at 5:24 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Jul 1, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Wesley Eddy w...@mti-systems.com wrote:
John Leslie noticed that some of the things Bob Briscoe had
mentioned stem from trying to work from RFC 2309 as the starting
point. We have been planning
Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Jul 1, 2014, at 5:24 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Jul 1, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Wesley Eddy w...@mti-systems.com wrote:
John Leslie noticed that some of the things Bob Briscoe had
mentioned stem from trying to work from RFC 2309 as the
Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Jul 1, 2014, at 5:24 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
As I said yesterday, I am scratching my head on what it means to
obsolete or update a document, and how that might relate to this note.
Fred is not alone! The IESG keeps coming back
There has been a bit of discussion last week about
draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation and how to improve the text near
the beginning, that leads to and sets context for the actual
recommendations.
John Leslie noticed that some of the things Bob Briscoe had
mentioned stem from trying to work from RFC
13 matches
Mail list logo
