Hi Richard line 134: "???: does an AQM implementation must justify its cost. I don't think you"
that's *probably* me trying to say that "it's up to the AQM designers to justify the cost of their proposed AQM given a set of scenarios/environments where their AQM is aimed to operate at. Q1: Is it mandatory for them to design an AQM that is justified in cost for every possible network scenario (e.g. w/ packet scheduling, etc.)? answer: no! Q2: do we require them (or is it mandatory) to justify the cost of AQM implementation in where they define their AQM to operate at? yes!" The current draft actually have specifically covered that. Cheers, Naeem On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:53 PM, Scheffenegger, Richard <[email protected]>wrote: > First of all, thanks to the note takers. > > We've had quite some discussion around the AQM evaluation guideline draft, > and I believe the notes capture many of the points brought up. > > If you have been up and made a comment on the Microphone, I would like you > to check if the spirit of your comment has been properly captured in the > notes: > *http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-89-aqm*<http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/notes-ietf-89-aqm> > > > > Richard Scheffenegger > > NetApp > *[email protected]* <[email protected]> > +43 1 3676811 3146 Office (2143 3146 - internal) > +43 676 654 3146 Mobile > *www.netapp.com* <http://www.netapp.com> > > EURO PLAZA > Gebäude G, Stiege 7, 3.OG > Am Euro Platz 2 > A-1120 Wien > > > > > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm > >
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
