Re: [aqm] updated draft charter

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> 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
http://gettys.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/low-latency-requires-smart-queuing-traditional-aqm-is-not-enough/#more-1091argues,
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
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>
>