On 1/22/2016 2:17 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
I do also (personally) think that if there's a desire to go standards-track
(rather than just experimental) with AQM algorithms, that having a fairly
explicit evaluation of
Wes and all,
My comment is in regard to Polina's comment "The WG currently has two AQMs
(dropping/marking policy) in last call. Did someone evaluate these AQMs
according to the specified guidelines?". As I read over
draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines, I did not think the objective of this memo
The evaluation guide needs to be executable, or rather, turned into
public code and a standardized benchmark suite. Eventually.
Iteratively, flent has many tests that have proven valuable and quite a
few that have not.
The tests in the aqm guide, need to be created, iterated on, and examined.
On 1/22/2016 1:32 PM, Klatsky, Carl wrote:
Wes and all,
My comment is in regard to Polina’s comment “The WG currently has two
AQMs (dropping/marking policy) in last call. Did someone evaluate
these AQMs according to the specified guidelines?”. As I read over
draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines,
On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
> I do also (personally) think that if there's a desire to go standards-track
> (rather than just experimental) with AQM algorithms, that having a fairly
> explicit evaluation of the algorithms with regard to the guidelines
Hello; the working group last call on the PIE drafts generated some
emails, but I don't think I've seen any response from the editors.
Specifically, there were a couple of emails with algorithm description
questoins and technical comments from Rasool Al-Saadi and Ilpo Jarvinen,
both with