|
Dear authors of draft-ietf-rtgwg-qos-model, I appreciate your work and I know, you have been active for years, to reach the current state. While going through your draft, I felt it to be complete if looked at as generic DiffServ functionality. Time passed since
you started and some new RFCs related to AQM evolved, like Codel,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8289 PIE, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8033.html
or L4S, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9332.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9331.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9330.html My personal view is, draft-ietf-rtgwg-qos-model should progress now, and being looked at as a generic qos-model. New QoS related RFCs, but not part of draft-ietf-rtgwg-qos-model should be mentioned, but their inclusion
left to a review. One comment related to content: I’d appreciate all burst-sizes and queue or buffer related configs, including RED/WRED thresholds, to be settable in units of time. That will be microseconds and milliseconds as an option. I think, this makes sense as
technologies like Virtual Output Queueing are easier to operate and configure from a provider point of view, if buffer management is based on buffer occupation (which is often measured in units of time).
An editorial comment: The draft can be improved on its formal sections, if it is reviewed by a native speaker, I think (and excuse, if I’m wrong).
I’m not a YANG expert. Regards, Ruediger |
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
