On 18. sep. 2014, at 13:50, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Dave Taht <[email protected]> writes: > >> I agree it relies heavily on the codel draft to keep the distinction >> between flow queuing and aqm distinct. If it were to include codel (or >> vice versa), the draft would get rather long. > > IMO it would be quite possible to make the description AQM-agnostic; and > I do believe the scheduling mechanism has value in itself. I'll be happy > to present some data on this at the Honolulu meeting if there's interest > in it. > > Perhaps a way forward would be to make the main description of the > scheduling mechanism AQM-agnostic, and then have a section describing > interactions with specific AQMs. This would just include CoDel right > now, of course, but would make it possible to, for instance, add in an > fq_pie at a later date... > >>> We would like feedback right now on adopting: >>> 1 - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pan-aqm-pie-01> and >>> 2 - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel-02> >>> towards the charter milestone for submitting algorithm >>> specifications to the IESG. Whether they are Proposed Standard >>> or Experimental can be debated now or later, but we want to >>> probe if there's critical mass to adopt them first. >> >> +1 on both. > > +1.
+1 Michael _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
