The present text is intentionally descriptive only, and ties-in with the bleaching text. I personally think this deployment advice is consistent with the intention of the AQM recomemndations, but I agree it is not specifically called-out in RFC2309.bis, and this reference therefore really needs to be removed in the next rev.
This is not the place to make a BCP recommendation. If "we" get a chance, I also think the IETF should assert this using RFC2119 language in an appropriate future document.
Gorry On 23/04/2015 15:15, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
I meant draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-03 (not draft-welzl-ecn-benefits-02) though... On 23.04.2015 13:56, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:Hi again, I still know I'm late but there are two more points: draft-welzl-ecn-benefits-02 says: "Network devices must not drop packets solely because these codepoints are used [RFC2309.bis]" and "A network device should therefore not remark an ECT(0) or ECT(1) mark to zero [RFC2309.bis]." I could not find this recommendation in draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-11, at least not in the section 4.2.1 (AQM and ECN), but it should be in there (and should actually say: a network device MUST NOT remark, ECT(0), ETC(1) or CE to zero)...? Mirja
<snip> _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
