> On Dec 14, 2017, at 10:59 PM, Wesley Eddy <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12/14/2017 4:35 PM, Roland Bless wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> I was wondering what happened to the GSP AQM proposal >> (draft-lauten-aqm-gsp see >> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lauten-aqm-gsp). >> Discussion seems to have ended after IETF 93 and we probably >> missed the point of discussing WG adoption. >> IMHO this AQM should also be documented as RFC. It performs extremely >> well in some settings (better than CoDel or PIE) and its implementation >> complexity is also lower. Wolfram, are you interested in finishing this? >> Should we continue in tsvwg? >> > > I mentioned GSP as a possible work item, back when we were discussing > rechartering, but apparently it was not compelling to the group at that time. > > When we did the AQM algorithm adoption call ~2014, GSP appeared to be > basically viable technically, but there wasn't evidence that multiple parties > were interested in working with it enough to go forward (not just working the > document, but implementing, simulating, testing, analyzing, deploying, etc). > There is a thread in the archives with subject "[aqm] adoption call: > algorithm drafts”.
I agree, I also remember lack of activity / interest, but I would like to encourage people to at least take a look at this. In my opinion, it was an extremely interesting proposal, and I felt I learned something new from listening to Wolfram (I had become conditioned to believe that removing synchronization requires randomness). Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
