Am 12.11.14 um 14:03 schrieb Scheffenegger, Richard:
Hi Martin,
I believe these papers may qualify that requirement:
http://ipv6.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/DOCSIS-AQM_May2014.pdf
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6925768
https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/37381
tl;dr - both pie and codel camps did some independent implementations
and testing of the respective other algorithm, with discussions and
denting out some poorly described aspects in that process. It's my
understanding that this lead to a better quality of the drafts in
both instances.
Cool & thanks!
Martin
Richard Scheffenegger
-----Original Message----- From: aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Martin Stiemerling Sent: Mittwoch, 12. November 2014
13:47 To: aqm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [aqm] analysis paper on PIE...
[writing not as AD, but as random IETF participant]
Sorry for this blunt question:
Is there any other analysis made by an independent source, i.e.,
where not the PIE authors are running an analysis of PIE?
Thanks,
Martin
Am 10.11.14 um 21:15 schrieb Rong Pan (ropan):
Please see our analysis paper on PIE...
Thanks,
Rong
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
