On Sun, 29 Mar 2015, Szilveszter Nadas wrote:
Hi,
You have an interesting process to encourage mic comments. ;)
Reviewed version: "draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie-00".
Me too.
Some suggestions and comments:
Abstract:
...
"They are commonly positioned at the
head of the bottleneck link for traffic in the upstream direction
(from the customer),"
I find this sentence hard to read. I would suggest changes to the abstract
along these lines (I will include _ around the changed parts)
"DOCSIS cable modems provide broadband Internet access to over one hundred
million users worldwide. They are commonly positioned _so that they
handle the lowering speed adaptation in the upstream direction_ (from the
customer) towards the Internet, and as a result, the impact of buffering
and bufferbloat in the cable modem can have a significant effect on user
experience. The CableLabs DOCSIS specification _(introduced in)_ 3.1
includes requirements for cable modems to support an Active Queue
Management (AQM) algorithm that is intended to alleviate the impact that
buffering has on latency sensitive traffic, while preserving bulk
throughput performance. In addition, the CableLabs DOCSIS 3.0
specifications have also been amended to contain similar requirements."
I just feel that this makes it easier for a non-expert read by changing
the second sentence to not talk about "head", and clarify that later that
the AQM sections were introduced in 3.1 specification.
Section 1.
Here it says "CableLabs'" and in abstract it says "CableLabs" (without ').
Is that correct?
I would recommend to add "upstream from the customer" in the second
paragraph.
Section 3.
The list in 3 doesn't match the 3.1-3.4 headers, so my suggestion would be
to get rid of the list in 3 and just keep the 3.1-3.4 headers.
Conclusion:
Then I read A, and that seems mostly to list changes to PIE for the
DOCSIS-PIE implementation?
What is the aim of this document? To describe in an IETF environment what
the DOCSIS-PIE implementation does? This is not stated in the abstract or
introduction. I think it would be worthwhile to put in a few lines in
either place to describe exactly what the aim of the document is, and
potentially, what it isn't. Perhaps bump the overview from section 1 to 2
and insert an introduction there?
It's my opinion that this is a document that is valuable to publish as an
informational draft in IETF-AQM.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
