On 24 Mar 2016 3:02 am, "grenville armitage" <garmitage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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 ..."
>
Actually I'd read that as more of a recommendation than merely safe. I think by safe, the authors mean that no significant harm has been found to occur. Simply restating that the protocol is experimental should be enough, I'd have thought, though if you really want:
Although Experimental, this is believed to do no harm as a default in practise, 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>