Thanks! Will approve now! Finally! Yeah! > Am 14.10.2017 um 08:31 schrieb Jana Iyengar <j...@google.com>: > > Hi Mirja, > > I've posted -10 of the draft, see more below. > > > 2) Did you see Alia’s comments on mircoflows? I think it is true that in > > some cases you may also want to use additional information like the flow > > label or DSCP and not just the 5-tuple, while the text explicitly talks > > about 5-tuples. Do you want to add something here, or did you on purpose > > decide to only restrict to 5-tuples? I thinks this may be an unnecessary > > restriction and probably was not meant to be one. > > > > We fixed the draft to remove mentions of 5-tuples. (This was already done > > in -08.) > > Okay. I was wondering if you want to explain more explicitly what flow means, > by e.g. saying something like it can be not only a 5-tuple but e.g. could > also include DSCP but that is implementation dependent…? > > I really do not want to get into defining a flow; I think this works for any > definition of flow, since that's ultimately implementation dependent. Any > implementation can (as they do) assume whatever they want in terms of > defining a flow. > > > 3) Did you see this comment from Ekr: > > "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?“ > > Can you explain how this was addressed? Maybe I just missed that but it > > seems important. > > > > There's nothing to be done if a packet arrives at a full buffer besides > > dropping it... we've added a sentence now that says "Packets arriving at a > > full buffer SHOULD be dropped." Hopefully that should clarify things. > > The point here was rather the question if you count these as drop or not in > your algorithm. I believe you don’t count them but only those packets that > actually get dropped by CoDel directly, right? > > However, I don’t think using normative language in the sentences you’ve added > makes sense because, as you say, drop is the only thing you can do. I guess > you’d need to say something like this instead: > > "Packets arriving at a full buffer will be dropped. These packets are not > counted for the calculation of the CoDel algorithm.“ > > Or something similar… > > I've removed normative language (Dave Taht also didn't like it) and replaced > it with some text about how it's not really used for CoDel computations. I've > also moved it to later in the draft where it fits better. > > I've also taken in some other editorial nits that I received from Lixia Zhang > in the meanwhile (Thanks, Lixia!). > > Thanks all! > - jana
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
