Makes sense to me. I do have one question. Per charter, in December we are supposed to "Submit first algorithm specification to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard”. Would this be a change of direction for the charter?
Note that I’m not pushing a given algorithm, nor am I convinced that there should be exactly one. In protocol design, we are worried about interoperability, and everyone has to implement the protocol the same way. In AQM, the different algorithms, and the ones we think of next, have to produce a specific drop or mark rate under a specified circumstance (which might be about queue depth, latency in queue, or rate through a queue), and the end systems need to respond to that predictably. The means by which the mark or drop rate is established is semi-irrelevant if the rate itself is maintained. So I’m not exactly sure what the terms “Experimental” or “Proposed Standard” mean in the context and using the definitions in RFC 2026. It would be nice if we had a status that said “recommended for consideration for operational use”, and we could put that status on several that meet our requirements, whatever we decide those are. On Apr 1, 2014, at 5:11 AM, Wesley Eddy <w...@mti-systems.com> wrote: > Hello AQMers. As chairs, Richard and I had been planning to let > the evaluation guidelines converge and then use those to guide > adoption of algorithm documents. > > However, we now think there may be value in not waiting so long, > and getting some algorithm documents moving along more quickly. > > We hope you can provide some feedback on the plan below: > > 1) Starting soon, we may look to adopt a small number of algorithm > drafts for Experimental, with the goal that by doing so, it will > increase the number of eyeballs and independent reviews of them, and > enhance the quality, since people may be implementing to the drafts > in order to test using the evaluation guidelines. Each algorithm > *must* clearly identify which types of use cases / scenarios it is > targeted for. > > 2) Adoption of an algorithm spec as a working group draft will require > working group consensus that the algorithm looks attractive to > experiment with for the stated scenarios, and multiple parties will > plan to be looking at it, testing, analyzing, providing feedback, > etc. > > 3) The evaluation guidelines / scenarios drafts being worked on > separately will guide the later selection of one or more Experimental > algorithms to become Proposed Standards with applicability > statements for the scenarios they have been evaluated in. > > We're interested to know if the working group thinks this sounds like > a good idea, bad idea, or any other thoughts. > > -- > Wes Eddy > MTI Systems > > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > aqm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it. Albert Einstein
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
