Telechat Review of draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-09
review-ietf-aqm-recommendation-09-genart-telechat-davies-2015-03-16-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 11) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart) | |
Deadline | 2015-02-17 | |
Requested | 2015-02-12 | |
Authors | Fred Baker , Gorry Fairhurst | |
I-D last updated | 2015-03-16 | |
Completed reviews |
Genart Last Call review of -08
by Elwyn B. Davies
(diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Shawn M Emery (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Mehmet Ersue (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Elwyn B. Davies |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 11) | |
Result | Almost ready | |
Completed | 2015-03-16 |
review-ietf-aqm-recommendation-09-genart-telechat-davies-2015-03-16-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at < http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-09.txt Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 2015/02/09 IETF LC End Date: 2014/12/24 IESG Telechat date: (if known) - Summary: Almost ready for BCP. I have done some homework on the subject of AQM since my previous review and reread the latest version (-09). I think a couple of my comments in the previous review were inappropriate - apologies to the authors - and we did not come to a meeting of minds at that point. On rereading, I think it is generally an excellent and readable document. However there are a couple of points, including one left over from the previous review, that could be usefully and (IMO) importantly taken into account. Minor Issues: Ensuring that mechanisms do not interact badly: Given that a number of different mechanisms are being developed and potentially may all be deployed in various quantities in routers, etc., along the path that a packet takes, ensuring that this does not lead to instability or other interactions should also be a target of research. A number of applications now have flow control mechanisms that may be deployed as an adjunct to TCP so that a single path may have multiple nested end-to-end feedback loops (notably, just about to be standardized, HHTP2!) and it would be very wise to ensure that adding AQM into the loop does not lead to problems. A short extra paragraph in s4.6 would cover the case I think. Interactive applications such as gaming; and The gaming aspect is mentioned very briefly (in s4.6). Gaming is a major application and, for many consumers, ensuring that interaction with server-based games is low latency and pretty reliable is key to their enjoyment and the continuation of a large segment of the computer entertainment market. Combinations of traffic: A little more stress on the need to consider combinations of traffic in further research would be desirable. I found CableLabs report of their simulation comparisons of the various AQM mechanisms being developed to be instructive in various ways: general AQM background, requirements of gaming and similar applications and thinking about combinations of traffic. Nits/editorial comments: (not fixed from -08) General: s/e.g./e.g.,/, s/i.e./i.e.,/ s1.2, para 2(?) - top of p4: s/and often necessary/and is often necessary/ s1.2, para 3: s/a > class of technologies that/a class of technologies that/ ^^^^^^ s2, first bullet 3: s/Large burst of packets/Large bursts of packets/ s2, second set of bullets, #2: Probably need to expand POP and RDP (DNS and IMAP are in the RFC editor's "well known" class). Alternatively could change POP/IMAP to "email access protocols". s3, bullet #2, last para: s/open a large numbers of short TCP flows/may open a large number of short duration TCP flows/ s4, last para: s/experience occasional issues that need moderation./can experience occasional issues that warrant mitigation./ s4.2, para 6, last sentence: s/similarly react/react similarly/ s4.2.1, para 1: s/using AQM to decider when/using AQM to decide when/ s4.7, para 3: the use of Map/Reduce applications in data centers I think this needs a reference or a brief explanation. Maybe: Jeffrey Dean and Sanjay Ghemawat. 2008. MapReduce. Commun. ACM 51, 1 (January 2008), 107–113. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1327452.1327492