Does anyone have data?
I'm not sure that it helps people to say there is research in evaluating
the potential for ECN to save CPU cycles. I'm intrigued, and I'd like to
see the research. But is this something we should add.
Gorry
> Hi Wes
> I am happy with a note as a potential b
The authors believe this addresses the concerns that were raised and think
this is now ready to proceed.
Best wishes,
Gorry & Michael
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-08.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Godred Fairhurst and posted to the
> IETF repo
Thanks for the feedback.
Gorry
> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-06: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (F
Thanks for the feedback.
Gorry
> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-06: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (F
RFC3449 pointed to some of the reasons & problems with manipulating TCP
ACKs, and could provide a useful background if people needed to get up to
speed on the history...
Gorry
> I'm not sure why this discussion is happening on aqm@ instead of tcpm@...
> I have added cpm to the cc line,
/listinfo/aqm
Gorry
___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
This is a minor revision to incorporate minor corrections received from
Mirja, after her review of the last revision.
Gorry
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Active Queue Management and Packet
Scheduling
in a quick revision.
Best wishes,
Gorry
Overall: /e.g./e.g.,/
Section 1.1:
/in various scenarios to ensure the safety/
Im not sure this is quite correct, I suspect we may mean:
/in a variety of scenarios to ensure the safety/
Section 1.2:
/any AQM proposal must be evaluated/
may
Works for me - thanks for being so quick.
Gorry
Hi,
Thank you for pointing out these issues.
We just uploaded a -06 version that considers
all your points.
Thanks a lot.
Nicolas
On 30 Jun 2015, at 15:35, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
Hi authors,
I've just read -05 of the document
things better, but it does say that AQM designers need to think
about the latency of queueing CE-marked packets, and that better
algorithms could be made.
We'll send this shortly to the list.
Gorry
for many positive bullet points in the present document I can think of
a negative counter-example
some scoping questions (near the end).
Comments in-line.
Gorry
Hi Gorry, hi Michael,
to catch up with this: I think most of my comments were addressed.
Especially the
restructuring and removing of all normative language is good. Thanks!
The one point I'm still not super happy
I did review the latest WG draft, (sorry for the wrong name in the title.
Gorry
This is a review of AQM Evaluation Guidelines
I think this document has a useful set of tests.
I think the document has value and an updated version of this document
should be published. There are likely
evaluations and discussions are a MUST and which are a MAY and
there seems to be some contradictions, which willneed to be checked in the
next revision.
Best wishes,
Gorry
___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
On 28/04/2015 14:34, John Leslie wrote:
Gorry Fairhurst go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
To: Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se, aqm@ietf.org aqm@ietf.org
My summary: I would like to see some text on the downsides of having
ECN transport, ECN enabled routers and having middle box bleaching
ECN
based on the received comments.
Please let us know if we have understood correctly.
Gorry Michael
___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
Dear Mirja,
Thank you very much for your detailed review! Answers below:
Begin forwarded message:
Date: 23. april 2015 kl. 19.28.54 CEST
From: Mirja Kühlewind mirja.kuehlew...@tik.ee.ethz.ch
To: aqm@ietf.org, Michael Welzl mich...@ifi.uio.no, Gorry
Fairhurst go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk
Subject
be
changed...?
Mirja
We are indeed considering one very minor change to the wording here to
prevent future confusion. Once we have text, we'll share with the WG to
be sure this is acceptable.
Gorry Fred
___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https
needs to be removed in the next rev.
This is not the place to make a BCP recommendation. If we get a
chance, I also think the IETF should assert this using RFC2119 language
in an appropriate future document.
Gorry
On 23/04/2015 15:15, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
I meant draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits
-- it's about getting congestion signals without
packet loss.
I think the IETF would normally recommend diffserv priority marking for
network control traffic.
--
John Leslie j...@jlc.net
Gorry
___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org
to that effect, seems
reasonable to me.
Thanks, this is something I think we can propose to the WG at the Dallas
meeting. Thoughts from others welcome.
Gorry
Greg
On Mar 17, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Gorry Fairhurst go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
On 17/03/2015 15:11, Wesley Eddy wrote:
On 3/11/2015 4:10
On 17/03/2015 15:11, Wesley Eddy wrote:
On 3/11/2015 4:10 PM, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
Alas, due to a slight technical mistake by me, we missed the ID deadline.
So I have posted an interim version here:
http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/ietf/AQM/draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-01.txt
http
technical mistake by me, we missed the ID deadline.
So I have posted an interim version here:
http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/ietf/AQM/draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-01.txt
http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/ietf/AQM/draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-01.xml
I plan to upload this version to the archives
Please see some thoughts below.
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Gorry Fairhurst go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk
wrote:
OK, so I have many comments, see below.
Gorry
On 12/08/2014 10:43, Bob Briscoe wrote:
Wes, and responders so far,
A doc on the benefits and pitfalls of ECN is needed
On 29/08/2014 14:52, David Collier-Brown wrote:
On 08/29/2014 09:16 AM, Scheffenegger, Richard wrote:
Hi Gorry,
Given QUIC includes FEC to hide losses, I guess it is a good example to
consider whether ECN still offers sufficient benefits over and above
just removing losses.
GF
twice in two successive sentences.
Section 4
/It is however incorrect to discuss/ - This seems rather judgmental to
prohibit discussion, is it possible to invert the argument and say what is
useful?
Gorry
For reference, the draft is at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-aqm-sfq
The authors have submitted a new version of the draft, this was to resolve
comments on the new text in -07, and adjust to RFC-Ed style US English
spelling of some words.
Gorry
A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-08.txt
has been successfully submitted by Godred Fairhurst
Bob - those changes are aded.
Gorry,
At 14:45 11/08/2014, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:
Suggested text, respectively:
* The last two classes contain more aggressive flows
that can pose significant threats to Internet performance
* The projected increase in the fraction of total Internet
propose
text again (I must have missed that detail.
Apart from that, does this mean you have no specific comments on this
version?
Gorry
___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
algorithms, of which PIE is an example, work with queue depth
as a corollary to latency, and adjust their understanding of the
relationship dynamically.
Agreed.
Gorry and I have separately commented, in that private conversation,
that obsoleting RFC 2309 doesn't obsolete RED as an algorithm
some on-going discussion about whether this now should
move RFC2309 to Historic, or not. This issue needs to be resolved before
we finalize the introduction. Let's hope we can conclude this soon.
Best wishes,
Gorry
On 01/07/2014 10:15, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft
and shouldn't have policing or isolation in every
buffer.
NOTE: Gorry - this seems like an issue we have been through, putting AQM
in the core would need care, given that most AQM methods we know are
optimised for RTT (for instance) which will effectively degrade people
further away in the Internet
it will take to complete the job).
If other people *DO* have comments against specific parts of the current
text, please do tell the list.
Gorry
Gorry,
I'm concerned that you've asked me to supply text to /add/ to the
early sections, when they actually need a lot /subtracted/. They need
See comments in-line, Gorry
First, is this based on teh discussion or the revised draft text in -04,
where the words were chosen to try to reflect this - but carefully avoid
saying you can not integrate AQM scheduling?
I strongly agree with Bob's concerns:
- Congestion collapse cannot
Gorry,
And just on this...
a) Congestion collapse: An AQM cannot prevent congestion collapse -
that is the job of congestion control and, failing that, of policing.
Even isolation (e.g. flow separation) doesn't prevent congestion
collapse, because collapse is caused by the load from new
.
- Reworked the knee para. Various updates in response to feedback.
We have just posted a new version of the ID that we think addresses the
comments
made during the WGLC. If you made comments please check this version and
see if you are comfortable with the updated text.
Best wishes,
Gorry Fred
- but that is not to say we
shouldn't progress the two ideas in parallel if both are good.
--
John Leslie j...@jlc.net
___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
Gorry
___
aqm mailing list
Gorry - I added a few words to add to those from Fred, see in-line as [gf].
On Nov 7, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid)
shahid.akh...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote:
Hi All,
Had some comments on Fred's document. I have added the comments as track
changes in a word document to easily see
37 matches
Mail list logo
