On Dec 15, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Bob Briscoe <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fred, > > Jonathan Morton, Michael Scharf & I took Naeem's question to mean "What > should an AQM assume the size of a good burst is?" whereas I think you and > David C-B took the question to mean "What should an end-system take the size > of a good burst to be?". I can't comment on what he means. I took the question as "what should a system that is in receipt of what it might consider a 'burst', and more especially a 'good burst', to be?" I don't know that a sending transport (which is to be distinguished from the queueing arrangement in that same system) or a receiving system *has* a definition of a "good" or "bad" burst. The one is sending data, which in the context of y two examples might be a good or bad idea, and the other is receiving it. From the receiver's perspective, the data either arrived or it didn't; if it arrived, there is no real argument for not delivering it to its application...
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
