Dave Taht <[email protected]> writes: > I agree it relies heavily on the codel draft to keep the distinction > between flow queuing and aqm distinct. If it were to include codel (or > vice versa), the draft would get rather long.
IMO it would be quite possible to make the description AQM-agnostic; and I do believe the scheduling mechanism has value in itself. I'll be happy to present some data on this at the Honolulu meeting if there's interest in it. Perhaps a way forward would be to make the main description of the scheduling mechanism AQM-agnostic, and then have a section describing interactions with specific AQMs. This would just include CoDel right now, of course, but would make it possible to, for instance, add in an fq_pie at a later date... >> We would like feedback right now on adopting: >> 1 - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pan-aqm-pie-01> and >> 2 - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel-02> >> towards the charter milestone for submitting algorithm >> specifications to the IESG. Whether they are Proposed Standard >> or Experimental can be debated now or later, but we want to >> probe if there's critical mass to adopt them first. > > +1 on both. +1. -Toke
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
