Re: [aqm] adoption of draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie-01

[Greg White <[e-mail]>]

Szilveszter,

Thank you for the review and comments.  I will update the draft with your
suggestions. 

On your question, DOCSIS-PIE does not utilize fair queuing.  DOCSIS modems
do support multiple queues, but each queue is (generally) an independent
MAC layer service, with independent QoS configuration and scheduling.

The general-purpose PIE algorithm does rate estimation so that it can work
in systems where the egress rate is not otherwise known.  We did
experiment with an FQ-PIE implementation, as described in:

http://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/DOCSIS-AQM_May2014.pdf

  
Even in this case, we chose to not utilize egress rate estimation.

-Greg



On 3/29/15, 3:16 AM, "Szilveszter Nadas" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>You have an interesting process to encourage mic comments. ;)
>
>Reviewed version: "draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie-00".
>
>I did read the document, looks good from clarity perspective. The changes
>compared to PIE also look reasonable.
>
>I cannot judge however how well the algorithm estimates PIE behavior or
>how good is it in general. I did not read the references.
>
>Questions:
>-" 3.2. Departure rate estimation" Pie implements a rate estimator
>because it might be used with Fair Queueing schedulers. You write "
>Third, in the significant majority of cases, the departure rate, while
>variable, is controlled by the modem itself via the pair of
>token bucket rate shaping equations described". I assume that Fair
>Queueing is either not implemented then in the modem or it is rarely used
>together with PIE. Is it so, or do I misunderstand this? Please clarify
>this for me and also in the document, if you think that is applicable!
>
>I propose the following updates (all optional in my view but it would
>definitely help the reader):
>-State that the "[DOCSIS*" documents do contain simulation results. It
>was not clear for me from just reading the draft.
>-Write a short (<0.5 page) summary of the simulation results in the
>appendix.
>
>Cheers,
>Szilveszter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Scheffenegger, Richard [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 16:53
>To: Greg White; Mikael Abrahamsson; Dave Dolson; Szilveszter Nadas
>Cc: [e-mail]; '[e-mail]'
>Subject: RE: [aqm] adoption of draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie-01
>
>Hi group,
>
>as there haven't been any objections, but some indications of support on
>the list, and based on the responses in the IETF92 meeting in Dallas, we
>chairs think this document can be adopted as WG-item at this time.
>
>
>Greg, can you please upload the most recent version as
>draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie-00?
>
>Also, as mentioned in the meeting, and to make true of my promise, I
>would like to invite the following individuals to review this draft, once
>the updated version becomes available.
>
>Mikael Abrahamsson
>Dave Dolson
>Szilveszter Nádas
>
>Mostly everybody else who has commented during the meeting is already
>assigned to other documents (Nobody will be left out :)
>
>Thanks,
>  Richard (co-chair)
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: aqm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Scheffenegger,
>> Richard
>> Sent: Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2015 08:45
>> To: Greg White; '[e-mail]'
>> Cc: Rong Pan (ropan); [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [aqm] adoption of draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie-01
>> 
>> Hi Greg, group,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Regarding the adoption call, this is something we can actually (and
>> should) start on the list.
>> 
>> We can confirm that during the Dallas meeting in the room, but even
>> before that, we'd like to get responses on the list now...
>> 
>> Perhaps we have some volunteers to review this new version as well...
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>>   Richard
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Greg White [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> > Sent: Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2015 01:13
>> > To: [e-mail]
>> > Cc: Rong Pan (ropan)
>> > Subject: Re: [aqm] agenda for IETF 92 / Dallas
>> >
>> > Wes & Richard,
>> >
>> > Unfortunately I will not be at IETF92 in person, but will attend
>> remotely.
>> >  For draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie, Rong & I updated it in January and
>> > included a new appendix to give a change log, which reads:
>> >
>> > ===============
>> > Appendix B.  Change Log
>> > B.1.  Since draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie-01
>> >
>> >    Added Change Log.
>> >
>> >    Removed discussion of Packet drop de-randomization, Enhanced burst
>> >    protection, and 16ms update interval, as these are now included in
>> >    [I-D.ietf-aqm-pie].
>> >
>> > ===============
>> >
>> >
>> > Regarding WG adoption, I saw some support from Lars (and no
>> > objections)
>> to
>> > adopting it on an Informational track.   Will you do an official
>> adoption
>> > call at the Dallas meeting?
>> >
>> > -Greg
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2/23/15, 8:40 PM, "Wesley Eddy" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Greetings AQMers!  We requested a short AQM meeting slot at the
>> > >upcoming IETF 92 meeting in Dallas, and we received a 1-hour slot
>> > >on
>> Tuesday:
>> > >https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/92/agenda.html
>> > >
>> > >Since this is not a lot of time, we'll need to prioritize the work
>> > >that is discussed to what requires the face-to-face time in order
>> > >to make progress on.
>> > >
>> > >For active draft editors, please let us know via this list or
>> > >[e-mail] what you think your meeting time needs
>> > >are, so we can put together an agenda.  If you don't need meeting
>> > >time now, or would like to use an interim telecon to assist in
>> > >gathering feedback, please also let us know.
>> > >
>> > >For others, please read the drafts, comment on this mailing list,
>> > >and help us to review and complete them:
>> > >https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/aqm/documents/
>> > >
>> > >Thanks in advance!
>> > >
>> > >--
>> > >Wes Eddy
>> > >MTI Systems
>> > >
>> > >_______________________________________________
>> > >aqm mailing list
>> > >[e-mail]
>> > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aqm mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm