IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Fri, 15 December 2017 07:26 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F036B124BFA for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 23:26:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MrpDqJEYp27m for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 23:26:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-out02.uio.no (mail-out02.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:8210::71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B01D127201 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 23:26:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-mx06.uio.no ([129.240.10.40]) by mail-out02.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1ePkOR-000Eq1-P6; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:26:51 +0100
Received: from [160.80.82.29] by mail-mx06.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.82_1-5b7a7c0-XX) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1ePkOQ-0001TR-Ud; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:26:51 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <6cbdb8fb-4a4f-9fdf-e391-081c9bf94a1f@mti-systems.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 08:26:55 +0100
Cc: Roland Bless <roland.bless@kit.edu>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>, "LAUTENSCHLAEGER, Wolfram (Wolfram)" <wolfram.lautenschlaeger@nokia.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <723CBDCB-9A11-4527-9EDB-1892CCC134CE@ifi.uio.no>
References: <468c391d-7e18-e67c-d1b6-b6526eb8d9e3@kit.edu> <6cbdb8fb-4a4f-9fdf-e391-081c9bf94a1f@mti-systems.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx06.uio.no: 160.80.82.29 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=160.80.82.29; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=[160.80.82.29];
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 3AFE433EC0B428EA15E0F7AF91AA97B5B079361D
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/-HtFnNFTnw6fmm6ST0CB5jmx4z0>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/aqm/>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:26:56 -0000

> On Dec 14, 2017, at 10:59 PM, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email