[aqm] working group kickoff

Congratulations, as you may have seen, the AQM working group was approved by the IESG! Richard and I wanted to remind people that the charter is fairly aggressive in schedule. We previously had seen strong consensus in the BoF meeting and on the AQM and TSVAREA mailing lists for making a working

Re: [aqm] [Bloat] [iccrg] AQM deployment status?

On 10/14/2013 1:07 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: So my first question to the AQM WG is what is the scope of AQM WG work in terms of where in the network this WG wants to focus? If the answer to that question is everywhere, then we have to be aware that conditions in core and conditions in home

[aqm] WG status

Hi, as we've entered 2014 and have charter milestones that we're working towards, Richard and I thought it would be good to start periodically sending a status report to the WG mailing list so that we can all keep up with what's going on, and focus our efforts together on the things that need

[aqm] publishing algorithms

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

Re: [aqm] publishing algorithms

n 4/1/2014 12:34 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: 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? Yes, it would be a

[aqm] last call results on draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation

Hello AQMers, the WG last call on the 2309bis / AQM recommendation draft has turned up a couple of reviews that said the document isn't quite ready. I think some of the comments could be resolved relatively easily with an update, though others might take some discussion to converge on what really

Re: [aqm] last call results on draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation

On 5/15/2014 5:09 AM, Bob Briscoe wrote: Wes, I assume you also want comments on the new version. Is there a deadline for comments? Absolutely, yes. There's no deadline at the moment, but it would be good to get any out sooner rather than later, especially if they're likely to need more

Re: [aqm] AQM conference call - June 24

Here are webex and teleconference information for this meeting: Topic: AQM Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 Time: 1:00 pm, Eastern Daylight Time (New York, GMT-04:00) Meeting Number: 644 364 555 Meeting Password: 1234 --- To join the online

[aqm] reminder: AQM conference call

None of the information below has changed since initially announced, but this is just a reminder that on Tuesday we'll have a conference call that everyone is welcome to dial into in order to discuss the ongoing AQM work and prepare for the Toronto meeting. Agenda == 1 - discuss overall WG

[aqm] Obsoleting RFC 2309

There has been a bit of discussion last week about draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation and how to improve the text near the beginning, that leads to and sets context for the actual recommendations. John Leslie noticed that some of the things Bob Briscoe had mentioned stem from trying to work from RFC

[aqm] IETF 90 minutes posted

Please see the IETF 90 AQM meeting minutes posted at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/minutes/minutes-90-aqm Many thanks to Andrew McGregor for taking these down. There are a couple of names that may need correcting; please relay these and any other changes to either this list or to

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-07.txt

On 8/11/2014 9:45 AM, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote: Responsiveness is important, but I believe it is OK for unresponsive flows that are small in relative terms to only be responsive at very long timescales (even solely at flow set up - self-admission control). This even applies to aggregates

Re: [aqm] adoption call: draft-baker-aqm-sfq-implementation

For reference, the draft is at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-aqm-sfq-implementation-00 On 8/11/2014 10:25 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote: Based on feedback we've seen, it looks like there is significant value in progressing draft-baker-aqm-sfq-implementation as a working group document

[aqm] ADOPTED draft-kuhn-aqm-eval-guidelines

Based on the mailing list adoption call feedback and other comments received during meetings and telecons, we are adopting: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kuhn-aqm-eval-guidelines/ as an AQM WG draft towards the charter milestone for an informational document on algorithm evaluation

[aqm] Fwd: Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-08

Original Message Subject: Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-08 Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 14:35:01 -0500 Resent-From: draft-alias-boun...@tools.ietf.org Resent-To: f...@cisco.com, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk, mls.i...@gmail.com, r...@netapp.com,

Re: [aqm] Pete Resnick's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-09: (with COMMENT)

On 2/19/2015 7:25 AM, Martin Stiemerling wrote: Pete, Good catch! Authors doc shepherd: Did the author sign anything? If not, we need the pre-5378 boiler plate. No they didn't sign anything. In fact many of them have been difficult/impossible to reach, and the author list on 2309

[aqm] working group status

Hi, to get 2015 started, Richard and I as chairs put together a set of milestone status notes for the AQM working group items. Please note, that there are a few relatively short drafts that should not require much work, but which haven't been very actively discussed on the list. Comments on

Re: [aqm] Please review: Benefits and Pitfalls of using ECN

On 3/11/2015 4:10 PM, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote: Alas, due to a slight technical mistake by me, we missed the ID deadline. So I have posted an interim version here: http://www.erg.abdn.ac.uk/users/gorry/ietf/AQM/draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-01.txt

[aqm] review of CoDel -00 draft

I reviewed and have some comments on the CoDel draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-aqm-codel-00 1) I believe it would be a good idea to tie the goals listed in section 1 (in the bullet list on page 4) to the AQM guidelines from the RFC-to-be of draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation.

Re: [aqm] PIE (and CoDel) drafts: proposed standard vs informational?

On 4/29/2015 12:42 PM, Bob Briscoe wrote: Richard, Wes, 1) The AQM charter says: Dec 2014 - Submit first algorithm specification to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard Hi Bob, thanks for raising this, since it probably requires some clarification and discussion. I thought we'd

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-04.txt

On 5/8/2015 11:42 PM, Simon Barber wrote: I have a couple of concerns with the recommendations of this document as they stand. Firstly - implementing AQM widely will reduce or even possibly completely remove the ability to use delay based congestion control in order to provide a low priority

Re: [aqm] review of draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-04

On 5/7/2015 5:39 PM, Dave Taht wrote: On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Michael Welzl mich...@ifi.uio.no wrote: Hi, On 7. mai 2015, at 22.40, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote: I see that during my absence here most mention of the potential negative aspects of ecn have been nuked from

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-04.txt

On 6/12/2015 8:46 AM, go...@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote: Since we are already in WGLC, the WG Chairs probably will need to decide the scope - if this is changed, I expect will anyway require a new WGLC. Hopefully the new ID will help. Here are my thoughts, with chair hat on. It's an Informational

Re: [aqm] WGLC on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines

On 8/18/2015 6:07 PM, Dave Taht wrote: On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Roland Bless roland.bl...@kit.edu wrote: Hi, Am 10.08.2015 um 15:43 schrieb Wesley Eddy: As chairs, Richard and I would like to start a 2-week working group last call on the AQM characterization guidelines: https

Re: [aqm] WGLC on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines

On 8/18/2015 6:03 PM, Roland Bless wrote: Hi, Am 10.08.2015 um 15:43 schrieb Wesley Eddy: As chairs, Richard and I would like to start a 2-week working group last call on the AQM characterization guidelines: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines/ Please make

[aqm] WGLC on draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines

As chairs, Richard and I would like to start a 2-week working group last call on the AQM characterization guidelines: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines/ Please make a review of this, and send comments to the list or chairs. Any comments that you might have will be

[aqm] Yokohama meeting planning

This is a quick poll to ask if people think we need to have a face-to-face WG meeting in Yokohama. If so, please identify the topics that you want face-to-face time to discuss, or whether these could be as easily handled in a webex or conference call (perhaps as a virtual meeting). -- Wes Eddy

[aqm] working group last call on CoDel drafts

This message is to start a working group last call on the CoDel and FQ-CoDel documents: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-codel/ and: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel/ Please provide any comments you might be saving up on these by the end of December.

Re: [aqm] Document Action: 'The Benefits of using Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN)' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-aqm-ecn-benefits-08.txt)

On 12/1/2015 5:22 PM, Steve Baillargeon wrote: Hi Sorry to come so late with a comment. Is it too late to add one more benefit to the draft? I suspect ECN brings potential and significant savings in CPU cycles and memory usage , especially on the "server side" terminating a large number of TCP

Re: [aqm] is the codel draft ready for last call?

Please go ahead and submit the updated draft so we can start a working group last call. On 10/30/2015 12:25 AM, Andrew Mcgregor wrote: Hi Dave, Jana and I did the editorial pass over it, but missed the cutoff date. We plan on submitting a last-call version during the meeting, so yes, it

[aqm] working group status and rechartering vs. closing

Hello; the AQM list has been mostly quiet recently, other than discussion around the IESG comments on our drafts as they progress through the IESG review, so I thought it would be a good time to send a status snapshot and start more discussion about rechartering. The datatracker page tells

[aqm] AQM plans

Hello AQMers, this is just a quick note to be clear on working group status and forward planning. Currently, all of the active drafts are either in WGLC, or in the process of shepherd writeups to go the the AD. Once we get the current set of drafts out for publication, there are a few

Re: [aqm] status of PIE drafts WGLC

On 1/22/2016 10:01 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote: Hello; the working group last call on the PIE drafts generated some emails, but I don't think I've seen any response from the editors. Specifically, there were a couple of emails with algorithm description questoins and technical comments from Rasool

Re: [aqm] status of PIE drafts WGLC

On 2/10/2016 3:13 PM, Klatsky, Carl wrote: Wes, If the 'algorithm' drafts (CoDel, FQ-CoDel, and PIE) are targeted as Experimental, does that mean at some time later their status moves onto either PS (if real-world testing & use pans out) or Informational (if no activity further proves it out

Re: [aqm] Experimental vs informational vs standards track

On 2/4/2016 8:22 PM, Dave Täht wrote: I do not really understand how this criterion promotes docsis-pie from experimental to informational (or the reverse: demotes fq_codel from informational to experimental, which happened this morning... Hi Dave, I'm not ignoring the rest of your message,

Re: [aqm] Experimental vs informational vs standards track

On 2/4/2016 9:18 PM, Dave Täht wrote: Pie itself is proposed as standards track, despite the lack of field data, a 15 page criticism from bob briscoe of the public implementation, and other open issues like that. Personally I've been waiting for an actual modem to test on before bothering to

Re: [aqm] Experimental vs informational vs standards track

Dave, here is a longer answer to your specific questions; I hope this helps calibrate where I'm coming from at least: On 2/4/2016 8:22 PM, Dave Täht wrote: I realize now that there was a call as to what status it should be a while. I figured silence meant there was consensus on

Re: [aqm] Experimental vs informational vs standards track

On 2/4/2016 8:26 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote: There is IESG explanation of the distinction here: https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html Quoting from that, I think this is the criteria that makes it most clear Informational is appropriate for DOCSIS-PIE: ""&qu

[aqm] status of WGLC on fq-codel

Hello, we started a working group last call for comments on this draft in December: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel/ (this is the -03 version currently) Some comments were received since then, and Toke updated the document:

[aqm] status of codel WGLC

Hi, in December, we started a working group last call on: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-codel/ (the -02 version of the document) A couple of small comments that I've seen since then, but don't think were addressed are in:

Re: [aqm] status of PIE drafts WGLC

nformative): https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie-01.txt I think that is all that needs to be done. On 1/22/2016 10:01 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote: Hello; the working group last call on the PIE drafts generated some emails, but I don't think I'v

Re: [aqm] AQM plans

] On Behalf Of Wesley Eddy Sent: woensdag 10 februari 2016 20:27 To: aqm@ietf.org Subject: [aqm] AQM plans Hello AQMers, this is just a quick note to be clear on working group status and forward planning. Currently, all of the active drafts are either in WGLC, or in the process of shepherd writeups

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt

On 1/22/2016 2:17 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: On Jan 22, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Wesley Eddy <w...@mti-systems.com> wrote: I do also (personally) think that if there's a desire to go standards-track (rather than just experimental) with AQM algorithms, that having a fairly explicit eval

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt

On 1/22/2016 1:32 PM, Klatsky, Carl wrote: Wes and all, My comment is in regard to Polina’s comment “The WG currently has two AQMs (dropping/marking policy) in last call. Did someone evaluate these AQMs according to the specified guidelines?”. As I read over draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines,

[aqm] status of PIE drafts WGLC

Hello; the working group last call on the PIE drafts generated some emails, but I don't think I've seen any response from the editors. Specifically, there were a couple of emails with algorithm description questoins and technical comments from Rasool Al-Saadi and Ilpo Jarvinen, both with

[aqm] Fwd: Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05

FYI - some of Elwyn's comments may be of interest to the working group: Forwarded Message Subject:Gen-art LC review of draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05 Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 17:12:41 + From: Elwyn Davies To: General area reviewing team

Re: [aqm] Last Call: (FlowQueue-Codel) to Experimental RFC

On 3/24/2016 9:01 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: Dave Cridland writes: Well, I have to ask why, in this case, it's Experimental and not Standards-Track? Heh. Well, I guess the short answer is "because there wasn't WG consensus to do that". Basically, the working group

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-pie-05.txt

FYI - I believe this update addresses everything from the working group last call, and I plan to complete the shepherd writeup and forward it to our AD later this week. On 3/1/2016 3:16 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts

Re: [aqm] Berlin meeting

topics, though it's not clear that there is yet much agreement on specific topics that there would be common energy for. On 6/29/2016 10:06 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote: Hello, as you might have noticed, for Berlin, the AQM group is scheduled to meet on Friday: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting

[aqm] status of codel WGLC

Hi, for awhile, the CoDel draft was in working group last call. Some comments were received, and the authors made an update some time ago. There hasn't been much follow-up discussion. I assume this means the current draft meets people's expectations? If not, now is a good time to shout,

Re: [aqm] status of codel WGLC

The idnits issues link should have been: https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-aqm-codel-04.txt Apologies for the copy-paste error. On 9/14/2016 9:26 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote: Hi, for awhile, the CoDel draft was in working group last call. Some comments were

Re: [aqm] status of codel WGLC

:55 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) <roland.bl...@kit.edu <mailto:roland.bl...@kit.edu>> wrote: Hi Wes and all, Am 14.09.2016 um 15:26 schrieb Wesley Eddy: > Hi, for awhile, the CoDel draft was in working group last call. Some > comments were received, and the authors m

[aqm] WG status

I think there are no surprises here, but as there is an IETF meeting coming up, I wanted to make sure the AQM WG status is clear. The final working group document (on CoDel) is now in IETF Last Call, on the main IETF list. AQM does not plan to meet in Chicago, and should be closed down as

Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?

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