On 12/14/2015 4:09 AM, Kuhn Nicolas wrote:
Dear Polina, all,
1)The explanation was mostly on why parameters are not specified in
the document because the words unspecified was in a bold font in your
email ; this made me think that this was your concern about the document.
2)I think it is not an issue to have some parameters specified in the
document.
You do not “have to” write a longer review. Do it only if you think
it is necessary and helpful in having a better document J.
As Gorry said at IETF93, “this doc will never be perfect”[1].
With my co-chair hat on, I agree with this sentiment that it will never
be perfect. To my knowledge, there aren't other resources that have
better information and guidance than this document when it comes to the
topic of characterizing AQMs. The goal has been to produce something
useful to the community, compared to the current guidance available
(which is basically nothing), so I'm hopeful that we can get a version
of it with rough consensus to go forward.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong about this though.
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
