Hi Yuchung, Bob,
(w/o chair hat)
Wouldn't be a sensible reaction, in the scenario sketched by Yuchung, to have
at least one MSS memory available at all times for L4S queues, and drop from
the classic queue if that cann't be guaranteed earlier?
Best regards,
Richard
-Original
,
Richard
-Original Message-
From: Dave Taht [mailto:dave.t...@gmail.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 23. Juli 2015 13:24
To: Scheffenegger, Richard
Cc: aqm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [aqm] Minutes of the AQM WG session
1) in hard delay targets, I am credited with what matt mathis said (not
that I
Title: Explicit Congestion Notification for Lower Layer Protocols
Submission Date: 2015-07-20
URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1424/
Please reply by 2015-10-30
From: Transport Area Working Group (David Black david.bl...@emc.com)
To: 3GPP
Hi Group,
during the WGLC started end of April, the authors have received quite a bit of
feedback.
It's the chair's understanding that all the raised concerns have
Been addressed in the lastest version of this document
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-05.txt
Hello AQMers!
We have requested and were granted a short slot at IETF 93 in Prague, it's the
last 1-hour slot on Monday evening:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/agenda/agenda-93-aqm
There has been some behind the scenes discussion on the ordering of the talks,
and I'm afraid that this is
David,
Perhaps you would care to provide some text to address the misconception that
you pointed out? (To wait for a 100% fix as a 90% fix appears much less
appealing, while the current state of art is at 0%)
If you think that aqm-recommendations is not strogly enough worded. I think
this
the meeting is already assigned
to other documents (Nobody will be left out :)
Thanks,
Richard (co-chair)
-Original Message-
From: aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scheffenegger,
Richard
Sent: Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2015 08:45
To: Greg White; 'aqm@ietf.org'
Cc
Hi,
for some unknown reason, the slides are not properly linked here
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/92/materials.html#tsv
Please find the links in the meantime here:
Richard Scheffenegger
Storage Infrastructure Architect
NetApp Austria GmbH
+43 676 6543146 Tel
+43 1 3676811-3100 Fax
And, pressed the wrong button (or the right one too early):
Here is the currently working link
https://tools.ietf.org/wg/aqm/agenda
Best regards,
Richard
From: Scheffenegger, Richard
Sent: Dienstag, 24. März 2015 06:21
To: 'aqm@ietf.org'
Subject: IETF 92 slides
Hi,
for some unknown reason
Provided they share the whole set of data collected to the individual
participants on their dashboard, they don't seem to be collecting anything
other than UDP latency (without background load up or down)
Richard
-Original Message-
From: aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] On
Hi Martin,
I believe these papers may qualify that requirement:
http://ipv6.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/DOCSIS-AQM_May2014.pdf
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6925768
https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/37381
tl;dr - both pie and codel camps did some
...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Toke Høiland-
Jørgensen
Sent: Dienstag, 28. Oktober 2014 10:36
To: Scheffenegger, Richard
Cc: aqm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [aqm] Draft Agenda for IETF91
Scheffenegger, Richard r...@netapp.com writes:
14:40
draft-hoeiland-joergensen-aqm-fq-codel
Toke
Hi Gorry,
Given QUIC includes FEC to hide losses, I guess it is a good example to
consider whether ECN still offers sufficient benefits over and above
just removing losses.
GF: And then, isn't the implication of AQM to significantly increase the
number of losses unless we use ECN?
as individual
Hi Fred,
thank you for writing this down; one aspect that gets referred to, but not made
completely explicit in sections 3.2 and 3.3 is the interaction of the AQM /
Queue signals with the transport control loop.
IMHO, it should be made very clear, when the AQM action is done
[as individual]
Hi Lingli,
If you mean by „unified deployment” that you need similar AQM schemes with the
same parameters/goals, then no;
For ECN to achieve its goal (provided the end hosts are reactive), only the
marking probability needs to be roughly proportional to the level of
Hi,
As discussed this week, we will start a rather short WGLC on this document, as
it's the first milestone of the AQM WG.
We would like to encourage final reviews, including nits, and will conclude the
WGLC period in about 2 weeks time, at 20. March 2014.
Richard Scheffenegger
AQM WG
...@ifi.uio.no]
Sent: Montag, 17. Februar 2014 10:21
To: Dave Taht
Cc: Scheffenegger, Richard; aqm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [aqm] Draft Agenda for IETF89
On 16. feb. 2014, at 20:35, Dave Taht wrote:
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Michael Welzl mich...@ifi.uio.no
wrote:
14:40
draft
Hi Michael,
Thanks for providing the correct draft name; I updated the agenda accordingly.
Richard Scheffenegger (co-chair).
Charter items
-
14:40
draft-fairhurst-ecn-motivation
Gorry Fairhurst
15 min
This is apparently not a published draft yet.
It's draft-welzl-ecn-benefits,
Hi,
The draft agenda for this IETF meeting in London has currently the following
points.
Please let me know if you disagree with the ordering, length or anything else!
Best regards,
Richard Scheffenegger (aqm-chair)
-Original Message-
From: Nicolas KUHN [mailto:nicolas.k...@telecom-bretagne.eu]
Sent: Freitag, 07. Februar 2014 12:58
To: Scheffenegger, Richard
Cc: aqm@ietf.org
Subject: [AQM Evaluation Guidelines]
Dear all,
On the behalf of the contributors to the AQM Evaluation Guidelines, I
Hi,
a new month, a new status report.
First of all, Wes and I as chairs would like to thank the editors who have
stepped forward to work on the AQM Evaluation Guideline draft. We are really
thankful for their burst of efforts in the last couple weeks!
We expect that that a document will be
Hi,
A tentative agenda has been uploaded to
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/agenda/agenda-88-aqm
We plan to spend the majority of the 1st session (Tuesday) on the adopted AQM
recommendations draft, and the 2nd slot (Friday) mostly on the AQM evaluation
criteria discussion.
We would also
22 matches
Mail list logo
