On Jul 3, 2014, at 12:59 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> For instance 7141 updates 2309, if we obsoleted 2309, what would that mean to > 7141? Well, for one thing, it affects one of -06’s references. Oops > [Byte-pkt] > and Internet Engineering Task Force, Work in Progress, > "Byte and Packet Congestion Notification (draft-ietf- > tsvwg-byte-pkt-congest)", July 2013. should point to 7141. It’s a normative reference. 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 performs best (i.e. Preferentially drop/mark based only > on packet size). Procedures for selecting packets to mark/drop > SHOULD observe the actual or projected time that a packet is in a > queue (bytes at a rate being an analog to time). When an AQM > algorithm decides whether to drop (or mark) a packet, it is > RECOMMENDED that the size of the particular packet should not be > taken into account [Byte-pkt]. That was a pretty early change - I think in the initial set of recommendations I proposed. We might, however, need to rethink the wording there. What we’re trying to say, following 7141, is that one shouldn’t try to target data packets or some such thing. A packet is a packet; if the time comes to hit one, hit the one you’re looking at. But now that I read it, I could imagine someone thinking that means we can’t measure bit rates, only packet rates. Mumble.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
