> Scheffenegger, Richard <r...@netapp.com> wrote: >> >> had you the chance to review this new revision, which should address the >> comments you had? > > I expect to defer to Bob on this; > >but I read quite a few subtle changes > to 2309 in the restatement here, none of which I believe represent true > consensus of this WG (because they're not our intended subject). > > This is what I was trying to avoid by my suggestion of text to "update" > instead of "obsolete" 2309. > > There's no real show-stopper here -- folks undoubtedly will ignore > these for the most part. > > Nonetheless, it still bothers me to have no definition for terms like > "network device" and "congestive collapse". I tried to roughly define > "network device" in my suggested text; and avoided "congestion collapse" > (the term used in 2309) entirely. > > -- > John Leslie <j...@jlc.net> > If you see ambiguity in "network device", by all means send us propose text again (I must have missed that detail.
Apart from that, does this mean you have no specific comments on this version? Gorry _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
