Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt

2016-01-22 Thread Wesley Eddy
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

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt

2016-01-22 Thread Klatsky, Carl
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

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt

2016-01-22 Thread Dave Täht
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.

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt

2016-01-22 Thread Wesley Eddy
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,

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt

2016-01-22 Thread Fred Baker (fred)
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

[aqm] status of PIE drafts WGLC

2016-01-22 Thread Wesley Eddy
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