Subject: [aqm] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:25:41 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05: No Objection

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-fq-codel/

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

- 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.

- 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?

- 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.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:25:43 -0400

>    interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance.

Well, "necessary" is probably an overstatement, but there are some who
think that because 2119 says that the key words are "often
capitalized", but not that they always are, "should" means the same as
"SHOULD", and the former is also a 2119 key word.  Others of us don't
think that.  What's one to do?

So those two sentences make it explicitly clear what the intent is in
this document.  It's probably not "really necessary", but some find it
useful, and I, at least, have no objection to it.

Barry

---

From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:10:08 +0100

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).

>    interpreted as carrying [RFC2119] significance.

I've elected to keep this as per Barry's comment.

>    algorithm in particular is not a good fit. 

I've amended this to read "..offer significant performance gains compared
to alternative queue management strategies.."

> 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

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:09:56 -0700

Hi Toke,
> to alternative queue management strategies.."
Which is not that more precise. Anyway, just a comment.

Regards, Benoit