> On Nov 3, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Dave Taht <dave@taht.net> wrote:

>> I saw a blog posting that was enthusing about codel/fq_codel, and I was moved to
>> respond that the state of the art was now cake.
> 
> where?

This article (https://www.pcmech.com/article/bufferbloat-fix-slow-network/ <https://www.pcmech.com/article/bufferbloat-fix-slow-network/>) is a pretty sub-standard explanation of bufferbloat. But I didn't want to come across as the "smartest (smart-ass) guy in the room"

My plan was to gently correct the worst errors/misperceptions ("it's the bottleneck, stupid") and say that the state of the art had moved ahead, even of fq_codel, then point to the Cake page on the site.

>> But I looked at the Cake page on Bufferbloat.net <http://bufferbloat.net/> and wonder if everything there
>> is true, or whether it would be good to update
>> it. https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Cake/ <https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/codel/wiki/Cake/>
> 
> It's pretty much true.

Good. I will try this weekend to organize that info into a page that would serve well readers like those from the pcmech.com <http://pcmech.com/> site who're new to the subject, and curious about Cake/Bufferbloat.

Rich