From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-out01.uio.no (mail-out01.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A54323CB35 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 06:39:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-mx10.uio.no ([129.240.10.27]) by mail-out01.uio.no with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from ) id 1gIAO6-0000aO-Bl; Thu, 01 Nov 2018 11:39:42 +0100 Received: from boomerang.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.135]) by mail-mx10.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from ) id 1gIANx-00010r-5J; Thu, 01 Nov 2018 11:39:42 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\)) From: Michael Welzl In-Reply-To: <878t2h1jtm.fsf@taht.net> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:39:18 +0100 Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org, g.white@cablelabs.com, bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <878t2h1jtm.fsf@taht.net> To: Dave Taht X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1) X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx10.uio.no: 129.240.68.135 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=129.240.68.135; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=boomerang.ifi.uio.no; X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO) X-UiO-Scanned: EB4DB48AADA7514A331C65E655C6373FC4D642BE Subject: Re: [Bloat] quick review and rant of "Identifying and Handling Non Queue Building Flows in a Bottleneck Link" X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 10:39:47 -0000 Hi, > On 29 Oct 2018, at 05:02, Dave Taht wrote: >=20 >=20 > Dear Greg: >=20 > I don't feel like commenting much on ietf matters these days > but, jeeze, (snip) There seems to me to be a disconnect here, the core of which is this = comment: > Did I rant already that the vast majority of flows are non-saturating? That's a bug, not a feature - and you seem to treat it as an = unchangeable fact. Despite the undebatable importance of bufferbloat and its impact on e2e = packet latency, this is only one of the factors playing into the = "latency" that I perceive when I click on the link as I surf the = Internet. Flow completion time has to do with saturation as well. Cheers, Michael