Hi Wes, Informed by a recent ISOC-hosted roundtable meeting (report is here: http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/bandwidth-management-internet-society-technology-roundtable-series) I have responses to some of your timely questions (speaking personally, of course):
On 26 Nov 2012, at 06:56, Wesley Eddy <[email protected]> wrote: > Particularly, I have wondered: > - Should we have a working group looking at AQMs? I believe there is a strong and growing need for AQM at bottleneck links and there is a need to document suitable algorithms and provide industry guidance (in the form of BCPs) regarding tuning, where that is a consideration, and applicability of particular mechanisms. But to get beyond wishful thinking we need enough interest to produce a draft charter, at least. > - If so, does it make sense to shoot for Standards Track > specifications? For promising and broadly supported algorithms, sure, why not? > - Would we be able to come up with actual requirements > on an AQM so that it's implementable for cheap in > hardware and software, and behaves well under load? I hope so, otherwise I think we have a pretty serious problem looming. > - Would it be valuable to have a test suite for AQMs > similar to what ICCRG was doing for high-rate TCP? I think this could be worth shooting for, although I can already imagine lengthy discussions about the validity and relative 'weight' of specific tests. > - If any of this is of value, how much belongs in the > ICCRG versus TSV working groups? I tend to think this is valuable to the extent that it can be done in the IETF rather than the IRTF. And I agree with Bob - most of the relevant expertise is in TSV, although co-ordination with INT and OPS is certainly going to be important. Mat
