Hi Wes, Can you share the update/text that John Leslie had suggested which Fred mentions in his comment.
Thanks, -Shahid. -----Original Message----- From: aqm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wesley Eddy Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 4:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [aqm] Obsoleting RFC 2309 There has been a bit of discussion last week about draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation and how to improve the text near the beginning, that leads to and sets context for the actual recommendations. John Leslie noticed that some of the things Bob Briscoe had mentioned stem from trying to work from RFC 2309 as the starting point. We have been planning to Obsolete and replace 2309 with this document. John suggested instead to let it live on, and have this new one only Update it, and has suggested specific changes that could be edited in, if this were the case. I think we need to make a conscious on-list decision about this, and decide to either confirm that Obsoleting 2309 is correct, or to change course. Others can amplify or correct these, but I think the points for each would be: Obsoleting 2309 - 2309 was an IRTF document from a closed RG, and we now can make a stronger statement as an IETF group with a BCP - 2309 is a bit RED-centric, and we now think that people should be looking at things other than RED Not-Obsoleting 2309 (e.g. Updating 2309) - 2309 is a snapshot in history of the E2E RG's thinking - 2309 is mostly oriented towards AQM as a mitigation for congestion collapse, whereas now we're more interested in reducing latency Please share any thoughts you have on this, and what should be done. -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
