I similarly support the document. One comment, for Mikael. > On Apr 24, 2015, at 2:25 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote: > > On Fri, 24 Apr 2015, Wesley Eddy wrote: > >> To keep moving forward with the set of documents, we'd like to start >> a Working Group Last Call on: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits/ >> >> Please send any comments you have on this document to the list >> by May 8th. Other than those raised in the thread Mirja has just >> opened with her review, I'm not aware of any other open issues. > > I have re-read this document as if I never read it before. Writing my > thoughts as I read it. > > The title says "benefits" but the abstract states that the document will talk > about both benefits and potential problems. I therefore think the title does > not reflect the abstract. > > 1. Introduction: I don't understand the "(potential)", doesn't transport > always treat loss and CE marking as indications of congestion? Actually, the > way the introduction reads today one might interpret that TCP and SCTP are > "Internet transports" but UDP is not, because it's merely "transport".
Delay-based transports may or may not. For example, if Caltech FAST is in use,
the window is changed according to
least measured RTT
cwnd’ = cwnd * ------------------ + alpha
mean RTT
And the obvious thing to do on receipt of CE might well be to simply arrest
upward growth on the window, allowing the natural process to subsequently
reduce it. That would mean, in the above, solving for mean RTT when cwnd’ ==
cwnd (what RTT value would have cwnd not change in the above equation?), and
setting the mean RTT variable to
cwnd
mean RTT := min ( Mean RTT, least measured RTT * ------------ )
cwnd - alpha
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
