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
>
On 23/04/2015 12:19, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
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
The present text is intentionally descriptive only, and ties-in with the
bleaching text. I personally think this deployment advice is consistent
with the intention of the AQM recomemndations, but I agree it is not
specifically called-out in RFC2309.bis, and this reference therefore
really nee
