Fred, What I am saying is that I have worked with and verified implementations of Weighted Fair Queuing - and it is not Calendar Queues - certainly not as this draft describes it. Can you please provide a reference to what Weighted Fair Queues means - if it isn't Weighted Fair Queuing, or fix the draft's description (which could be merely mentioning Weighted Fair Queuing as a different work-conserving approach).
I realize that this is tangential to the point of the draft (or it would have been a Discuss), but I still would strongly prefer accuracy. Regards, Alia On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-03: Yes > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Thank you for a clear and well-written draft. > > > > I would like to understand the reference of "Weighted Fair Queues" and > have that clarified in the draft. It's a technical concern, but I have > confidence that the authors and ADs will address it. > > > > 1) Sec 2.2.3 refers to "Weighted Fair Queues" as well as "Calendar > Queues". Perhaps it is due to a lack in my recent background - but what's > described is nothing like Weighted Fair Queuing ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_fair_queueing). Do you have a > reference for "Weighted Fair Queues" or something else in mind?? > > Thanks for your question. The original intent of this draft was simply to > support a discussion, which I expected might be closed without needing to > publish an RFC. The working group decided that it wanted to adopt and > publish the note, which is fine as well. > > I think what you're looking at is the difference between theory and > practice. As you know, in theory, they are the same thing, and in practice > there can be important differences. If you read early papers, such as > McKenny's SFQ or Lixia Zhang's Virtual Clock, they talk a lot about > WRR-based implementations; calendar queues came later. But no real > implementation I am aware of (I have written two and am aware of several > others) attempts to implement GPS as the GPS paper describes it - nor does > the GPS paper expect them to. That's why that section in the draft is > titled "Approximations to GPS" - any implementation is necessarily an > approximation, and GPS describes the theoretical best case they are trying > to approximate. >
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
