On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Wesley Eddy <[email protected]> wrote: > I do also (personally) think that if there's a desire to go standards-track > (rather than just experimental) with AQM algorithms, that having a fairly > explicit evaluation of the algorithms with regard to the guidelines would be > very helpful, exactly as Polina asked about. But I don't think this has > really happened, and don't think it's necessary at all for experimental RFCs.
As I recall the discussion, we decided up front that since there is no interoperability requirement among AQM algorithms (the requirement is that they interoperate well with TCP and UDP based applications; the AQM algorithms don' actually talk to each other, and the point is to drop or mark at the right rate and with the right pattern to encourage transport layer sessions to behave well), we didn't need to recommend a single AQM algorithm for all equipment or all uses. What we did need to do was identify some AQM algorithms that actually worked, and give guidance to the vendors and operators on their use.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
