Hi all,
I know I'm too late for this but want to bring it up anyway:
draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-11 currently says:
"An AQM algorithm that supports ECN needs to define the threshold and
algorithm for ECN-marking. This threshold MAY differ from that used
for dropping packets that are not
Hi again,
I still know I'm late but there are two more points:
draft-welzl-ecn-benefits-02 says:
"Network devices must not drop
packets solely because these codepoints are used [RFC2309.bis]"
and
"A network device should therefore not
remark an ECT(0) or ECT(1) mark to zero [RFC2309.bis]."
I meant draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-03 (not draft-welzl-ecn-benefits-02)
though...
On 23.04.2015 13:56, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
Hi again,
I still know I'm late but there are two more points:
draft-welzl-ecn-benefits-02 says:
"Network devices must not drop
packets solely because these code
Bob/Gorry:
Didn’t we have essentially the same comment a week or two ago? What was our
resolution?
I think it was a minor rewording that included a little more than
s/threshold/parameters/, and which I worried was heading in the direction of a
much bigger question - "what parameters".
Fred
>
Hi Gorry, hi Michael,
as promised here is my review of draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-03.
My overall comment is that even after reading the document (or even slightly
more than before) I'm not completely sure what the purpose of this document is
and also what the audience is this documented is di
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 wi
