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 to Obsolete and replace 2309 with > this document. John suggested instead to let it live on, and > have this new one only Update it, and has suggested specific > changes that could be edited in, if this were the case. > > I think we need to make a conscious on-list decision about this, > and decide to either confirm that Obsoleting 2309 is correct, or > to change course. > > Others can amplify or correct these, but I think the points for > each would be: > > Obsoleting 2309 > - 2309 was an IRTF document from a closed RG, and we now can make > a stronger statement as an IETF group with a BCP > - 2309 is a bit RED-centric, and we now think that people should > be looking at things other than RED > > Not-Obsoleting 2309 (e.g. Updating 2309) > - 2309 is a snapshot in history of the E2E RG's thinking > - 2309 is mostly oriented towards AQM as a mitigation for congestion > collapse, whereas now we're more interested in reducing latency > > Please share any thoughts you have on this, and what should be done.
I’ll give you my view, which I just gave you privately.
The changes that have been requested include at least:
- remove the word “RED” from the document. The operators find RED difficult
to use and as a result don’t turn it on. They would like alternative
algorithm(s) that require at most minimal parameterization, ideally none at all.
- add ECN
- add scheduling, which 2309 explicitly didn’t address
- update references
We also have discussed additional recommendations beyond “everyone deploy RED”
and “we need more research”.
If you count affected lines in the document, just removing the word “RED”
affects 154 of the 955 lines in the document. Then we go into the rest of the
changes. I’m not sure in what way that can be described as an “update”.
Note that I’m not arguing that John’s calling my baby ugly. He is, but that’s
another matter :-). He sent you some proposed text to replace sections 1-3,
which I think the working group needs to see, as that’s the text you’re calling
an “update” as opposed to “obsoleting” the document. If the consensus is to
replace the existing sections 1-3 with his text, so be it. But it’s still a
huge change from 2309. Since one doesn’t have to read 2309 to understand this
document, I don’t see how it’s an “update”.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
