Re: [aqm] adoption call: algorithm drafts

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[e-mail]>]

Dave Taht <[e-mail]> writes:

> I agree it relies heavily on the codel draft to keep the distinction
> between flow queuing and aqm distinct. If it were to include codel (or
> vice versa), the draft would get rather long.

IMO it would be quite possible to make the description AQM-agnostic; and
I do believe the scheduling mechanism has value in itself. I'll be happy
to present some data on this at the Honolulu meeting if there's interest
in it.

Perhaps a way forward would be to make the main description of the
scheduling mechanism AQM-agnostic, and then have a section describing
interactions with specific AQMs. This would just include CoDel right
now, of course, but would make it possible to, for instance, add in an
fq_pie at a later date...

>> We would like feedback right now on adopting:
>> 1 - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pan-aqm-pie-01> and
>> 2 - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel-02>
>> towards the charter milestone for submitting algorithm
>> specifications to the IESG.  Whether they are Proposed Standard
>> or Experimental can be debated now or later, but we want to
>> probe if there's critical mass to adopt them first.
>
> +1 on both.

+1.

-Toke