Re: [aqm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05.txt> (FlowQueue-Codel) to Experimental RFC

grenville armitage <garmitage@xxxxxxxxxxx> · Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:01:17 +1100



    On 03/18/2016 21:35, Bob Briscoe wrote:

    
    IESG,
      authors,
      

      1. Safe?
      

      My main concern is with applicability. In particular, the sentence
      in section 7 on Deployment Status: "We believe it to be a safe
      default and encourage people running Linux to turn it on: ...".
      and a similar sentiment repeated in the conclusions. "and we
      believe it to be safe to turn on by default, as has already
      happened in a number of Linux distributions."
      

    At the risk of incurring further wrath, and noting that the IESG did
    request "final comments on this action" (hence all the CCs), I think
    there's something to Bob's observation about the word "safe".

    
    What about:

    
    Section 1: "...and we believe it to be safe to turn on by default,
    ..." -> "...and we believe it to be significantly beneficial to
    turn on by default, ..."

    Section 7: "We believe it to be a safe default and ..." -> "We
    believe it to be a significantly beneficial default and ..."

    
    (Yes, this is going to be an Experimental RFC. And yes, turning on
    FQ_CoDel generally results in awesome improvements wrt pfifo. But
    the two instances of "safe" in draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05.txt do
    imply to me a wider degree of applicability than is probably
    warranted at this juncture. I just hadn't noticed until Bob
    mentioned it.)

    
    cheers,

    gja