Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05

Request Review of draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 06)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2016-03-15
Requested 2016-03-11
Authors Toke Høiland-Jørgensen , Paul McKenney , , Jim Gettys , Eric Dumazet
I-D last updated 2016-03-23
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -05 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -05 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -05 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Jürgen Schönwälder
State Completed
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 05 (document currently at 06)
Result Has issues
Completed 2016-03-23
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the
IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the
operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that are not
addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG
review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments
just like any other last call comments.

  Document: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05
  Status: Ready with issues

This 'Experimental' document describes the FQ-CoDel packet scheduler
and active queue management algorithms as implemented in the Linux
kernel.  Althought a WG document, the I-D is mostly written like a
research paper and I think some editorial work will make the RFC more
accessible to readers not deeply involved in this area.

My biggest struggle though is the conclusions section. The conclusions
section gives a recommendation to implement and deploy FQ-CoDel
widely. I read this as the author's opinion but once published as an
RFC this might be read as a WG recommendation or even an IETF
recommendation. I think this text needs to be rewritten to make it
clear what is recommended here and by whom. I think this should be
addressed before the I-D can be published as an RFC.

Editorial notes:

* Title

  It might help to use a slightly longer title so people can more
  easily find this work or get a clue what this is all about, e.g.
  something along these lines:

    The FlowQueue-Codel (FQ-CoDel) Packet Scheduler and Active Queue
    Management Algorithm

* Abstract

  s+scheduler/AQM+/scheduler/active queue management/

* Introduction

  I suggest to add pointers to ns2 and ns3 (not every reader may know
  what these simulators are). And I suggest to replace

  s/for ns2 and ns3/for the network simulators ns2 and ns3/

* Flow Queueing

  s/is is/is/

  s/the the/the/

* Implementation considerations

  Provide an expansion and reference for DCTCP, expand CE

  Make sure all acronyms are expanded when first used, inclusing SFQ,

* References

  Does it make sense to list DOIs where available instead of URL
  pointing to personal web pages?


Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <