"Benoit Claise" <[email protected]> writes: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Benoit Thank you for your comments. An updated version that addresses them as laid out below is available here: https://kau.toke.dk/ietf/draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-06.html (or .txt). > - Is the following really necessary: > > In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation > only when in ALL CAPS. Lower case uses of these words are not to be > interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance. I've elected to keep this as per Barry's comment. > - section 6 > While FQ-CoDel has been shown in many scenarios to offer significant > performance gains, there are some scenarios where the scheduling > algorithm in particular is not a good fit. > > Gains compared to? I've amended this to read "..offer significant performance gains compared to alternative queue management strategies.." > - From Jürgen's OPS DIR review: > The working draft still says this: > > and we encourage such implementations be widely deployed > > It is unclear what 'we' is. This is something I think that needs to be > fixed since people will come up with different interpretation of such > a recommendation. (In a scientific paper, it would be clear that 'we' > refers to the authors but in documents coming out of IETF WGs, the > notion of what is 'we' is not so clear anymore. Yes, several people have pointed this out. I've changed this to read "to enable deployment outside of the Linux ecosystem". -Toke _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
