Re: [aqm] updated draft charter

Jim Gettys <> Thu, 11 July 2013 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1E1221F9DFC for <>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.447
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.447 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.303, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ehKoLPK-SIKu for <>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::233]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1183521F9DDC for <>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:47:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id xk17so9938628obc.24 for <>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=756szttOMBSaD8vdON/auw8LW5MKRMcDVkMOCZ4E52E=; b=TNhW4iD7kCOmBYGITjQYNyHdvO8oUKYy33TPa1SmyAJlGYKqwPoDOVMXfAaJGrqY9S JHTZ7wcH2k41qDZ8wjsuCpsWQnnxX8L0pEmRbv6r13M6s+v4Z1cco/vFxYrJN3K8cGE0 IoeHutYUB4LUpkOHqTPniDgqBkpnlu78t7tZFf2gKzB2RbuKE80gRlyUe7WjADm5vLd/ Hwep/piRvdpKYUmvOPpJ0eHw0GTw5vGYUrR7wqUrqBA+7/2vHfrub8mEZBwESSSSq/bn 60pu2KAw3a5j4LCU9LlvR0oHwZpbfPVo9W/BwNmopdcq3zFqtqshJ9FDc5Oys6W5IN1/ 8G6g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id nk6mr32601112obb.11.1373557622594; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:47:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 11:47:02 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: GXrAUMVNEocadRKUMWub3-q9dS4
Message-ID: <>
From: Jim Gettys <>
To: Wesley Eddy <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff242a32c60f504e13e4e3c"
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [aqm] updated draft charter
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: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 15:47:04 -0000

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Wesley Eddy <> wrote:

> I think the attached updated draft charter reflects most of the
> feedback that we've heard so far.
> Note that Dave Taht suggested we might want to go with something
> like "Smarter Queue Management" (SQM) for the WG name, because
> purely AQM as a name may not capture FQ type of mechanisms that we
> may want to have in-scope.  I think that scoping discussion may
> still be going on into Berlin, but it's a good point, and likely
> some other people have cute ideas for a name that could capture
> the potential broader scope.

Both Dave's and my experience as relative newcomers to this area is that
the term AQM is pretty tightly bound to mark/drop algorithms in the minds
of many people in the IETF, who also categorize other algorithms as queuing
algorithms. and make a pretty strong mental distinction between them.

As my blog post this week,
the killer combination is a cross between rapidly autotuning
mark/drop algorithms with what we're calling flow queueing (since it isn't
"fair" in the also traditional sense of TCP fair queueing at all, and may
not involve TCP flows necessarily either).

So while I'd be happy to lump this all into the AQM name bucket personally,
I do think that a name that makes clear we're considering algorithms that
may marry both lines of intellectual thought together will avoid confusion
among many who have worked in one area or the other, but not both.  "Smart
queue management" or SQM is the best we've come up with for a term.
                                                               - Jim

> --
> Wes Eddy
> MTI Systems
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list