Just for the record, the reason why I did not cross post my comments
to ecn-sane as well as tsvwg, was in the hope
that by putting the commentary on the draft there, and the venting,
here, was that it might cut down on the noise and pain level this time
around as we ramp up for another tense
Well,
now I wasted my evening by going through this once again, and I remember why I
forgot its content from last time around...
I am with Dave, it is a bit wordy for effectively saying let's call 2A = NBQ,
and it comes with loads of tangential text that really seems to belong to an
actually
Hi Dave,
fun fact, the draft is titled "Identifying and Handling Non Queue Building
Flows in a Bottleneck Link".
To which the _only_ and obvious answer is one does this by by observing
flow-behavior on the element that egresses into the bottleneck link.
Case closed, Nothing to see folks, you
I decided that perhaps it would be best if we tried harder
to live within the ietf's processes for calm, reasoned discussion
But in trying to review this internet draft...
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-white-tsvwg-nqb-02.html
I couldn't help myself, and my review is here:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 9:59 AM Sebastian Moeller wrote:
> Another nugget from the notes (
> http://yuba.stanford.edu/~bspang/buffer-sizing-meeting/notes/):
>
> This looks like an argument for fq_codel/cake's use of time instead of
> queue length, OR an argument for fq, because in a
Another nugget from the notes
(http://yuba.stanford.edu/~bspang/buffer-sizing-meeting/notes/):
Chuanxiong Guo, Bytedance
Talked about buffering in Bytedance’s datacenters. The top of rack switches
have buffers of 12-32MB, and the aggregation switches have larger buffers of
several GB. Were
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 10:13:39 -0700
Simon Barber wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:07 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> >
> > There's some good preso from various representatives in the dc market here.
> >
> > The p4 stuff, in particular (from barefoot) is looking impressive.
> >
> >
