[Cerowrt-devel] revised Codel RFC is up

[Cerowrt-devel] revised Codel RFC is up

[Dave Taht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 159 bytes --]

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel-01

-- 
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt:
http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 328 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] revised Codel RFC is up

[dpreed]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1923 bytes --]


This is an excellent RFC.  It should be issued immediately.  It should also be (along with fq_codel) cited as one alternative for managing queues properly in a new version of a "best practices" RFC.  There may be alternatives of similar quality, but those alternatives should have quantitative experimental evidence that shows similar benefits.
 
My own personal view of the effectiveness of IETF as an organization would be positively affected by how quickly a solution goes from this to widespread deployment (including upgrades of existing defective gear) - since I have occasionally asked to testify on the value of IETF in coordinating the Internet's evolution in policy circles, it should be noted that much of my opinion depends on such observations of organizational effectiveness in dealing with important problems, to the extent that matters.
 
In general, my observation of the IETF has been that it is largely dysfunctional as a vehicle for achieving important consensus that leads to problem solutions.  I'm not expecting better than that, but I could be surprised.
 
Organizations such as BITAG seem to have been invented because IETF fails.  I don't think BITAG is an appropriate forum, as it shows no competence whatever to discuss such things as congestion management with "clue" and experimental evidence.
 
We'll see.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 1:27pm
To: "bloat" <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>, bloat-announce@lists.bufferbloat.net, cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net, codel@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] revised Codel RFC is up


[http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel-01] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel-01

-- 
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: [http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html] http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2534 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] revised Codel RFC is up

[William Allen Simpson]

On 3/2/13 2:33 PM, dpreed@reed.com wrote:
> In general, my observation of the IETF has been that it is largely dysfunctional as a vehicle for achieving important consensus that leads to problem solutions.  I'm not expecting better than that, but I could be surprised.
>
There was a period between throwing off the yoke of (often well
intentioned) DEC and the dominance of (less well intentioned)
Cisco and Microsoft where IETF got a lot done -- before 1996.

Still, there was a long-standing TCP Implementors list that was
helpful.  The current TCPM WG is not.