Re: [aqm] updated draft charter

On 11 juil. 2013, at 18:06, gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk wrote:

> 
> I agreed that AQM has to some extent already been deployed in some places
> and this could be confusing to then redefine or obsolete this.
> 

+1

> For what it's worth I don't like "smart" queueing as a name - implying
> it's sounds like a marketing term rather than a combination of "AQM"
> mark/drop and flow scheduling.

+1

> 
> If SQM was short for  scheduling and queue management I may have liked the
> abbreviation more, ... let's see where this discussion ends.

Since we're looking for acronyms that (a) are pronounceable, (b) do not sound like a marketing gimmick, (c) match to a WG name that conveys the essence of what the WG will do, then why not simply: QMAPS? (Queue Management And Packet Scheduling).

David

> 
> Gorry
> 
> 
>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aqm mailing list
>> aqm@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

=================================================================
David ROS
http://www.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr/~dros/

I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by. -- Douglas Adams