Re: [aqm] BoF planning

Spencer Dawkins <> Wed, 29 May 2013 07:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6787E21F894E for <>; Wed, 29 May 2013 00:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.957
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.957 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.415, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id guGd-JUWCSaS for <>; Wed, 29 May 2013 00:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA9721F8916 for <>; Wed, 29 May 2013 00:30:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by (node=mrus2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LdYN8-1TzyId2EhG-00io03; Wed, 29 May 2013 03:30:34 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 02:30:39 -0500
From: Spencer Dawkins <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:caV+QBj+hVse9p4W8MEbXU8/OhYvHObTf8NRIQSrqN9 u7Q3NY08dLEmrMVwYPPCpchSpF4QKN37GkoFlsIEjR4TWlHIjC MXgruPOxBaE9O/DgQnLrsaBQ5lFAliEroH8fuUJDRDaTyCQ+kp Ji1yciPEDo3iiVibmpz2m8WfUZM2gPeIv40sxCTN59tIlReJXE EASQN/IisbOnrybV+7d+FBoewqEpQAYdzlh1N3tKTtkbmaYfkm dvp3cXOCVl+A5rZsHb787CnMRVqONJUxWnA8ZWtX2+ZowK4dbk AEYN/hYAGjN27ZoXsiDniDAwMQtt19cW8X2rz+i6WA1kEHvaqI d3QzhvG7BNlbQZZq/1KpQmksWWMY9R8j2KvdG3kTV
Subject: Re: [aqm] BoF planning
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 07:30:42 -0000

On 5/13/2013 9:47 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
> For planning an AQM BoF in Berlin, my thought is that
> a rather short BoF to beat up the charter and scope of
> work is what we'd want.

Wes, thank you for your work as AQM moves BOFward.

> The problem is pretty well understood, and I don't think
> more than a very brief overview is needed for people that
> might be interested from other areas.

I don't know if this would be helpful for anyone except me, but ... if 
there are lessons learned about the obstacles proposed AQN mechanisms 
faced in getting deployed, that might be helpful to remind people about, 
whether at a BOF, or as a proposed working group starts to work.

> I don't think we want to deep-dive into algorithms at this
> BoF, other than to show that they are becoming an active
> area of work again, that drafts are being brought to the
> IETF, and that there is interest in getting them done as
> IETF-stream RFCs.

Makes sense to me.

> In other words, one of the shorter timeslots should
> suffice, I think.

Makes sense to me. Were you thinking 60-minutes or 90 minutes?