On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Wesley Eddy <[email protected]> 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.
I saw this came out on april 1, and have a tendency to ignore stuff that comes out that day. :) > 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. We submitted the codel and fq_codel drafts for consideration prior to ietf 89, and have got no feedback from anyone as yet. The first went into tsvwg https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel/?include_text=1 and the second is seemingly homeless as yet: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoeiland-joergensen-aqm-fq-codel-00 As they were being developed independently, they have a few nits in relating to each other that need to be resolved, presently. If this is a new requirement, and it seems like it is, then those will need to be revised more fully, although each has caveats and use cases described already late in the document. (sections 6 and 9 in the first, section 10 in the second) Are you proposing an explicit use cases and scenarios section? > 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. +1 I note that I have another draft in progress that I hope to complete before ietf-90 describing multiple deployed aqm + packet scheduling + classification systems in the hope to get the overall conversation on track. http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~d/draft-taht-home-gateway-best-practices-00.html and I'd like to talk to that at ietf 90 if I'm not too broke to go. Otherwise hawaii. > > 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. At this point I must confess to being deeply dissatisfied with the progress in the AQM guidelines document. I don't know what to do about it, I've tried to talk about the issues being totally missed in things like this: http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Smart_Queue_Management and here on the list... and at the moment I'd prefer more folk have better models and understanding of actual traffic types on various media types before even trying to write anything down as to what valid tests are. I think I have finally come up for what I'd like this group to be doing, which is at least partially out of scope for the charter, but the acronym is nice: "CQM" - "Comprehensive Queue Management", and a goal is to try and design something that leverages the work other groups such as rmcat are doing. > We're interested to know if the working group thinks this sounds like > a good idea, bad idea, or any other thoughts. By all means, let's get folk fiddling with the working algorithms and code that exists today and is distributed now with every Linux box. Perhaps some more BSD support will show up soon, or hardware support in some other gear other than in what I describe above. I'm all in favor of new algorithms too, if anybody's got some... > > -- > Wes Eddy > MTI Systems > > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm -- Dave Täht NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
