[aqm] WG status
Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Wed, 08 January 2014 19:46 UTC
Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E968E1AE561 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:46:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y6XIAyeu7y38 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:46:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4mhob14.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob14.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23EAF1AE14F for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 11:46:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.210]) by atl4mhob14.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s08JkEFT025503 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Jan 2014 14:46:14 -0500
Received: (qmail 1640 invoked by uid 0); 8 Jan 2014 19:46:14 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 107.45.8.204
X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.43.65?) (wes@mti-systems.com@107.45.8.204) by 0 with ESMTPA; 8 Jan 2014 19:46:12 -0000
Message-ID: <52CDAAF7.2060307@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 14:45:59 -0500
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Organization: MTI Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [aqm] WG status
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 19:46:27 -0000
Hi, as we've entered 2014 and have charter milestones that we're working towards, Richard and I thought it would be good to start periodically sending a "status report" to the WG mailing list so that we can all keep up with what's going on, and focus our efforts together on the things that need work. Towards that goal, here is a snapshot of where we think the AQM working group is at today, and what the next steps are that people can contribute to: - WG Milestones: - Submit AQM recommendations to IESG for publication, obsoleting RFC 2309 (Goal: January 2014) - draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation is accepted towards this milestone - http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation/ - the draft needs to be updated per comments received, including feedback on the recommendations from the Vancouver meeting - if the authors are comfortable, a WGLC might be made on the next revision - we would like to hear from other authors of RFC 2309 on this document, if anyone has contacts to them. - Submit AQM algorithm evaluation guidelines to IESG for publication as Informational (Goal: July 2014) - We need an editor team to step forward and begin work on this; there was initial work presented in Vancouver, but no draft available or adopted by the working group yet. - It will be difficult to make this milestone, and will push other milestones back, if this work isn't accelerated. - Please express interest to the chairs or on-list - Submit first algorithm specification to IESG for publication as Proposed Standard (Goal: December 2014) - Since any Proposed Standard algorithm should be in line with the recommendations and be passable versus the evaluation guidelines, this milestone is hard to start on without significant progress on the previous two. - Currently the only algorithm spec with a complete and active individual-submission draft is PIE - Other items: - draft-pan-aqm-pie is under active work as a proposed algorithm: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-pan-aqm-pie-00.txt - CoDel draft is expired; Dave Taht or others may revive it and/or describe pairing with FQ/SFQ algorithms: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel-01.txt - Other algorithm specifications are welcome! - Though, we are not planning on adopting algorithms until recommendations and evaluation guidelines are mostly stable -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems
- Re: [aqm] WG status David Collier-Brown
- [aqm] WG status Wesley Eddy
- Re: [aqm] WG status Dave Taht
- Re: [aqm] WG status Preethi Natarajan
- Re: [aqm] WG status Naeem Khademi
- Re: [aqm] WG status Scheffenegger, Richard
- [aqm] WG status Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [aqm] WG status Dave Taht
- [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Nicolas KUHN
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Scheffenegger, Richard
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Nicolas KUHN
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Nicolas KUHN
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid)
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Nicolas KUHN
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Nicolas KUHN
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Dave Taht
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] David Collier-Brown
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Eggert, Lars
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Akhtar, Shahid (Shahid)
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Greg White
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Dave Taht
- Re: [aqm] [AQM Evaluation Guidelines] Greg White