Bob - those changes are aded. > 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. > I wasn't thinking that way - so I won't write that, I was wondering how to write the opposite of lockout. Because performance is one aspect - but methods to reduce synch and lockout are important also.
> >> >> >> > 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 > _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
