On 03/18/2016 21:35, Bob Briscoe wrote:
IESG, authors,
1. Safe?
My main concern is with applicability. In particular, the sentence in section 7 on Deployment
Status: "We believe it to be a safe default and encourage people running Linux to turn it on:
...". and a similar sentiment repeated in the conclusions. "and we believe it to be safe
to turn on by default, as has already happened in a number of Linux distributions."
At the risk of incurring further wrath, and noting that the IESG did request "final comments
on this action" (hence all the CCs), I think there's something to Bob's observation about the
word "safe".
What about:
Section 1: "...and we believe it to be safe to turn on by default, ..." -> "...and
we believe it to be significantly beneficial to turn on by default, ..."
Section 7: "We believe it to be a safe default and ..." -> "We believe it to be a
significantly beneficial default and ..."
(Yes, this is going to be an Experimental RFC. And yes, turning on FQ_CoDel generally
results in awesome improvements wrt pfifo. But the two instances of "safe" in
draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05.txt do imply to me a wider degree of applicability than is
probably warranted at this juncture. I just hadn't noticed until Bob mentioned it.)
cheers,
gja