Gorry,
At 14:45 11/08/2014, [email protected] wrote:
> Suggested text, respectively:
> * "The last two classes contain more aggressive flows
> that can pose significant threats to Internet performance"
> * "The projected increase in the fraction of total Internet
> traffic for more aggressive flows in classes 2 and 3 could
> pose a threat to
> future Internet performance"
> Note, I've also suggested changing 'stability' to 'performance' -
> this doc has nothing to do with oscillations, etc.
+GF: Agree, this text was directly taken from RFC 2309
let's change it
... but how about dependable performance? (i'd like to capture that this
isn't performance tuning - but more expectation of performance.
Dependable performance isn't right. I'd leave it
as just "...threat to ... performance".
Any protocol or algo that gives you k/N share of
available capacity doesn't give you dependendable
performance, because N isn't under your control, only k.
> Responsiveness is important, but I believe it is OK for unresponsive
> flows that are small in relative terms to only be responsive at very
> long timescales (even solely at flow set up - self-admission
> control). This even applies to aggregates of unresponsive flows,
> because they will tend to be deployed where even the aggregate is
> small relative to the link capacity.
> See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pwe3-congcons-02.pdf
> (comments to the PWE3 list pls).
+GF: I dont see this needed in this draft.
Sorry, I was just reinforcing my point that "the
sky is falling" language isn't necessary. I
didn't intend to say there should be anything
about any of the specifics in this para in the AQM draft.
> Bob
+GF: Im also considering replacing /congestive collapse/ by /congestion
collapse/ which seems a more common term, as noted by John L.
Works for me.
Regards
Bob
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe, BT
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
