grenville armitage <garmit...@swin.edu.au> writes: > What about: > > Section 1: "...and we believe it to be safe to turn on by default, ..." -> > "...and we believe it to be significantly beneficial to turn on by default, > ..." > Section 7: "We believe it to be a safe default and ..." -> "We believe it to > be > a significantly beneficial default and ..."
Aha! Finally someone is being constructive! Thank you! > (Yes, this is going to be an Experimental RFC. And yes, turning on FQ_CoDel > generally results in awesome improvements wrt pfifo. But the two instances of > "safe" in draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05.txt do imply to me a wider degree of > applicability than is probably warranted at this juncture. I just hadn't > noticed > until Bob mentioned it.) Still not sure I agree that having the word 'safe' in there is such a big deal, but, well, if multiple people think it's an issue that in itself might be reason enough to change it. And I can live with your alternative formulation. :) -Toke _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
