On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Alia,
>
> thanks for your feedback! Just on your first point regarding the status.
> The working group felt that there was not enough deployment to go directly
> to standards track and given AQM algorithm don’t need interoperability it
> was not really important for them to go to standards track right away.
> However, I leave it to the authors if they are able to add more text on how
> experimentation should be further performed.
>
>
This should be revisited.
fq_codel is the default queue discipline on many/most Linux distributions
on the planet at this date.
- Jim
> Mirja
>
>
>
> > Am 13.04.2017 um 07:28 schrieb Alia Atlas <[email protected]>:
> >
> > Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-aqm-codel-07: 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-codel/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Thank you for a clear and very well written document. This was well
> > worth staying up
> > past 1am to read fully. I do have one primary comment and a couple minor
> > points.
> >
> > First, the document status is Experimental. While encouraging
> > experimentation, the
> > document doesn't really articulate what the concerns are or how
> > experimentation might
> > determine that this should be changed to standards track. While
> > regrettably I haven't
> > personally followed the AQM work, I might assume that some of the issues
> > to general
> > applicability might be tied to aspects around the challenges of applying
> > CoDel to a
> > system architecture built around WRED AQM and enqueue complexity rather
> > than dequeue
> > complexity. Having a paragraph that gave context in the introduction for
> > the questions
> > still to be explored would be helpful.
> >
> > a) In Sec 3.4 : "This property of CoDel has been exploited in
> > fq_codel [FQ-CODEL-ID], which hashes on the packet header fields to
> > determine a specific bin, or sub-queue, for each five-tuple flow,"
> > For the general case of traffic, it would be better to focus on using a
> > microflow's
> > entropy information - whether that is derived from a 5-tuple, the IPv6
> > flow label,
> > an MPLS Entropy label, etc. Tying this specifically to the 5-tuple is
> > not ideal.
> > Obviously I missed this for draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-06 - but even a
> > slight rephrasing
> > to "for each microflow, identifiable via five-tuple hash, src/dest + IPv6
> > flow label, or
> > other entropy information" would encourage better understanding of
> > micro-flow identification.
> > Of course, this is just a comment - so do with it what you will.
> >
> > b) (Nit) In Sec 5.1: " We use this insight in the pseudo-code for CoDel
> > later in the draft."
> > The pseudo-code is actually earlier in the draft. Also
> > s/draft/document for publication.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aqm mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
