Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-aqm-codel-07: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-codel/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The normative part of this document seems reasonably clear and I believe I could implement it. Note: I have not attempted to assess the technical quality of the algorithm described in this protocol. I found the descriptive part a little hard to follow in places. Specifically: - It's a little hard to work out which things are informal terms and which are defined terms of art. "power" is used first on page 4 but it's only clear that it's a term of art in S 16. This could be fixed by a forward reference and a cite to Kleinrock. "target" and "interval" are constants in the algorithm, but this wasn't entirely clear to me in S 3.2. You could deal with this by stating in S 3 that the algorithm takes in two variables (TARGET and INTERVAL). Perhaps capitalize them. I see you also use "setpoint" and "target" and "target setpoint". I would stick to one if you can. - It seems that the document went through some reordering because S 5.1. refers to the pseudo-code as coming later in the draft. Perhaps some of the rationale could come before the pseudo-code. Specifically, the intuition that the dropping happens only when you are able to send packets (dequeue) is kind of counter-intuitive. - Following up on the above point, you must be able to drop packets when the queue is entirely full, but S 4.4 doesn't seem to contemplate this. What is the impact of this? You just drop and ignore? Finally, you seem a bit inconsistent about whether you are capitalizing 2119 terms (see for instance the use of should vs. SHOULD in the second graf of S 3.2). _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm