Scheffenegger, Richard <[email protected]> wrote: > > had you the chance to review this new revision, which should address the > comments you had?
I expect to defer to Bob on this; but I read quite a few subtle changes to 2309 in the restatement here, none of which I believe represent true consensus of this WG (because they're not our intended subject). This is what I was trying to avoid by my suggestion of text to "update" instead of "obsolete" 2309. There's no real show-stopper here -- folks undoubtedly will ignore these for the most part. Nonetheless, it still bothers me to have no definition for terms like "network device" and "congestive collapse". I tried to roughly define "network device" in my suggested text; and avoided "congestion collapse" (the term used in 2309) entirely. -- John Leslie <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
