Fred Baker (fred) <[email protected]> wrote: > > ... We also carried the recommendation into the draft: > >> 4.4. AQM algorithms SHOULD respond to measured congestion, not >> application profiles. >> >> ... >> An AQM algorithm should not deliberately try to prejudice the size of >> packet that performs best (i.e. Preferentially drop/mark based only >> on packet size). Procedures for selecting packets to mark/drop >> SHOULD observe the actual or projected time that a packet is in a >> queue (bytes at a rate being an analog to time). When an AQM >> algorithm decides whether to drop (or mark) a packet, it is >> RECOMMENDED that the size of the particular packet should not be >> taken into account [Byte-pkt]. > > ... > We might, however, need to rethink the wording there. What we're trying > to say, following 7141, is that one shouldn't try to target data packets > or some such thing. A packet is a packet; if the time comes to hit one, > hit the one you're looking at.
That's the way I read it... > But now that I read it, I could imagine someone thinking that means we > can't measure bit rates, only packet rates. Mumble. I can't see that interpretation as reasonable, given the phrase ] (bytes at a rate being an analog to time). It would be possible for someone to argue that restating a recommendation from another document weakens both statements; but I disagree: We should clearly state what we mean in this document, and I believe this wording does so. -- John Leslie <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
