> On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:01 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
I can include a link to http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/doc/node643.html#Brow88:Calendar <http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/doc/node643.html#Brow88:Calendar> if that helps. > Regards, > Alia > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Fred Baker (fred) <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On Oct 21, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Alia Atlas <[email protected] > > <mailto:[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 > > <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/ > > <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 > > <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. >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
