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 of unresponsive flows, >> because they will tend to be deployed where even the aggregate is >> small relative to the link capacity. >> See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-congcons-02.pdf >> (comments to the PWE3 list pls). > > +GF: I don’t see this needed in this draft. >
I agree; this BCP is about AQM behavior, and not the right place to hide recommendations or requirements on flow sources. > +GF: I’m also considering replacing /congestive collapse/ by /congestion > collapse/ which seems a more common term, as noted by John L. I agree with this too. -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
