From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "alln-iport.cisco.com", Issuer "Cisco SSCA2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6955F21F208 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2014 22:31:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1469; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1388644310; x=1389853910; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=kq7V5L9SMY+zai9cmYQ2rpyYzCvOpFjPEEMhIuujjLM=; b=Rjwd0ssFs8dSevtTkxPl5txLiWSlBE7Nb5iI3Jtd/U6Ddjp8nguPJnp2 s3HlzvSSve2hY3Z1zCZkDg8edBFIhfk1Zgp5tdNFUZK5u9aJH8/ldZrGp U9P2Yyq8Sq3gh9r0YCXf9mUgvRQVjOyrQ+x7nVDo6c8vDbOshM2Ko7ln9 E=; X-Files: signature.asc : 195 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFAPoGxVKtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABYgwuBDadbkReBDRZ0giUBAQEDAXkFCwIBCEYyJQIECgQFDoduCMIqF48dB4MjgRMEkDOBMYYzkhSDLYIq X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,589,1384300800"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="10049837" Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 02 Jan 2014 06:31:21 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com [173.37.183.80]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s026VL0d015130 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 2 Jan 2014 06:31:21 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.86]) by xhc-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([173.37.183.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 00:31:21 -0600 From: "Fred Baker (fred)" To: "" Thread-Topic: [aqm] What is a good burst? -- AQM evaluation guidelines Thread-Index: AQHPB4Q//OfwR1C28UGyjPKOXs6g3g== Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 06:31:20 +0000 Message-ID: <533BE7A9-7804-4A74-BBFB-C75CCE212434@cisco.com> References: <201312151857.rBFIuuea043478@gateway0.ipv6.occnc.com> In-Reply-To: <201312151857.rBFIuuea043478@gateway0.ipv6.occnc.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.120] Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E46BB7BE-5C7F-47D1-ADCE-2633CEAEE2E4"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: bloat , "aqm@ietf.org" , "" Subject: Re: [Bloat] [aqm] What is a good burst? -- AQM evaluation guidelines X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 06:32:01 -0000 X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 06:32:01 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_E46BB7BE-5C7F-47D1-ADCE-2633CEAEE2E4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Dec 15, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Curtis Villamizar = 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. --Apple-Mail=_E46BB7BE-5C7F-47D1-ADCE-2633CEAEE2E4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iD8DBQFSxQe2bjEdbHIsm0MRAuSyAKCWM1N4nXUaneofDIU/9TrRfLoZBwCeJvmV JtT1oLqhbYH9e11SzOcuhIg= =4pgW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_E46BB7BE-5C7F-47D1-ADCE-2633CEAEE2E4--