I agree the focus has been on updating the recommendations section. I quite understand that you have other things to do, so I'll try and summarise comments on the earlier sections and see if you agree. When we have a list we (with AQM chairs) can then decide what to do (work out how long 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 > to be written knowing where they want to go to, and just say enough > to get there. Effectively a re-write. > > A lot of people are confused about what AQM can and should do, so > this doc should have an important role in deconfusing. > > However, I don't have the b/w to volunteer to do this re-write. > > Bob > > At 17:27 15/05/2014, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote: >> > 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 flow >> >> > arrivals exceeding the ability of the system to serve and clear >> load >> >> > from existing flows, most likely because many existing flows are >> not >> >> > sufficiently responsive to congestion, so retransmissions dominate >> >> > over goodput (even if each unresponsive flow is in an isolated >> silo). >> >> > Flow separation doesn't help when the problem is too many flows. >> >> > >> >>That would seem OK to call-out, at least to me. >> > >> > My concern is that it's wrong to introduce a doc with a description >> > of a problem that we're not addressing in the body of the doc (even >> > tho collapse is an important problem, AQM doesn't address it, so why >> > is it even relevant at all?). E.g. we could also add world hunger to >> > the introduction, but it wouldn't be relevant. >> > >> >>So, we will find some way on this topic - the current editors did not >>start this... the document we update uses this language and I think in >>the update it needs to be confined to the early sections, possibly with >>your text on why there is not mention elsewhere. >> >>We look forward to the detailed comments. >> >>Gorry > > ________________________________________________________________ > Bob Briscoe, BT > > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > aqm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm > _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
