On Dec 15, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ipv6.occnc.com> wrote:

> So briefly, my answer is: as a WG, I don't think we want to go there.
> If we do go there at all, then we should define "good AQM" in terms of
> acheving a "good" tradeoff between fairness, bulk transfer goodput,
> and bounded delay.  IMHO sometimes vague is better.

As you may have worked out from my previous comments in these threads, I agree with you. I don't think this can be nailed down in a universal sense. What can be described is the result in the network, in that delays build up that persist, as opposed to coming and going, and as a result applications don't work as well as they might - and at that point, it is appropriate for the network to inform the transport.