Subject: [aqm] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:43:25 -0800

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-09: Discuss

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 http://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:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully an easy DISCUSS.
  3.  The algorithms that the IETF recommends SHOULD NOT require
       operational (especially manual) configuration or tuning.

This sentence above could be understood in different ways. For example,
that any configuration is wrong. 
The ability to activate AQM is a good thing IMO. 
The section 4.3 title is closer to what you intend to say: "AQM
algorithms deployed SHOULD NOT require operational tuning"
The issue is that you only define what you mean by "operational
configuration" in section 4.3

Proposal:

OLD:
  3.  The algorithms that the IETF recommends SHOULD NOT require
       operational (especially manual) configuration or tuning.

NEW: 
  3.  AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning of initial or
configuration parameters. 

OLD:
4.3 AQM algorithms deployed SHOULD NOT require operational tuning

NEW:
4.3 AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- RFC 2309 introduced the concept of "Active Queue Management" (AQM), a
   > class of technologies that, by signaling to common congestion-
   controlled transports such as TCP, manages the size of queues that

Remove >

-
  Network devices SHOULD use an AQM algorithm to measure local local
   congestion 

local local

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:30:34 +0100

Hi Benoit,

I do not see how your proposal is better than the original text.
The original text says that the IETF is not recommending any operational 
configuration or tuning. You proposal is globally saying that AQM 
algorithms should not require tuning, etc.

> 4.3 AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning

I see even less why this change is required and it makes an even 
stronger case. The first statement says that tuning in operations should 
not happen while your statement is saying that in general no tuning is 
required (even before going for operational).

   Martin

---

From: Martin Stiemerling <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:30:34 +0100

Hi Benoit,

   Martin

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:17:49 -0000

Benoit,

We think we have resolved the remaining issues and would like to propose
text that we think could address you DISCUSS:

We think our point was that tuning should not be required
*in*the*normal*case*, not
that they should *never* require tuning (I'm not sure we have created
anything that
is 100% auto-tuning). I'm OK with his phrasing in both cases, but would
suggest the
words "in common use cases" should be added:

  3.  AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning of initial or
configuration
parameters in common use cases.

4.3 AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning in common use cases.

Please let us know your thoughts,

Fred & Gorry

> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 09:17:49 -0000

Benoit,

Fred & Gorry

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:04:25 +0100

Hi Gorry,

Thanks for engaging.
> is 100% auto-tuning).
If it was a never, then the sentence would be

   3.  AQM algorithm deployment MUST NOT require tuning of initial or
configuration parameters.

> I'm OK with his phrasing in both cases, but would
> suggest the
I believe that the "in common use case" is redundant (and somehow 
confusing) with the SHOULD in your proposal.
SHOULD (RFC 2119):

    3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
        may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
        particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
        carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

However, I don't want to be picky on that point. I'll let your 
responsible AD decide.
My main point is covered. I'll clear that DISCUSS point.

> 4.3 AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require tuning in common use cases.
I don't see this change in the v10.
There is an important word in here "deployment" as opposed to "deployed" 
in the current 4.3 section title (4.3. AQM algorithms deployed SHOULD 
NOT require operational tuning)
"Deployment" brings to the notion of initial deployment as opposed to 
"deployed".
This is the reason why I propose:

NEW:
4.3 AQM algorithm deployment SHOULD NOT require operational tuning

I hope you will include this change, but it's not DISCUSS-worth IMO.
Same remark as above regarding "AQM algorithm deployment"

Regards, Benoit
> .

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 11:04:25 +0100

Hi Gorry,

Thanks for engaging.

NEW:

Regards, Benoit