Bob/Gorry: Didn’t we have essentially the same comment a week or two ago? What was our resolution?
I think it was a minor rewording that included a little more than s/threshold/parameters/, and which I worried was heading in the direction of a much bigger question - "what parameters". Fred > On Apr 23, 2015, at 4:19 AM, Mirja Kühlewind > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I know I'm too late for this but want to bring it up anyway: > > draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-11 currently says: > "An AQM algorithm that supports ECN needs to define the threshold and > algorithm for ECN-marking. This threshold MAY differ from that used > for dropping packets that are not marked as ECN-capable, and SHOULD > be configurable." > > But I think it should be: > "An AQM algorithm that supports ECN needs to define the parameters and > algorithm for ECN-marking. These parameters MAY differ from that used > for dropping packets that are not marked as ECN-capable, and SHOULD > be configurable." > > so just s/threshold/parameters/ ...? > > I've just caught this now because I'm reading draft-welzl-ecn-benefits-02; > sorry. Maybe it's still possible to make such a small edit... if other people > think as well that this should be changed...? > > Mirja > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
