IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [aqm] AQM schemes: Queue length vs. delay based

"Rong Pan (ropan)" <ropan@cisco.com> Fri, 15 November 2013 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ropan@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 611F911E8105 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:02:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.371
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OwSQapnbi9Y1 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:02:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E5F11E80DC for <aqm@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:02:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2567; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384552968; x=1385762568; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=SyIF17j1I+SNyzUzXB/zorGCznxxydWxHexvgDI4jaM=; b=iX7474uWj1GCSiXx7Cr/on/+JKgBTaHeKFZRPUCQVzids0tBJLu4tQJW LUoiPYvSJw78hvV+LE4Ack2f+MZ5L6NDHkoYE/g0j6hjS46JWcS8kSJP9 9rrfa8kRRjE3rOY9/zfa9enACvgio+H4edpRbqfvLAMLT/G7gktWBX6H8 k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FADaZhlKtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABZgkNEOFO/LIEqFnSCKgJ5EgEIBAEJaiUCBA6IBg3BGI9pB4QxA5gQkg2DKIIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,710,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="285453636"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2013 22:02:47 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com [173.37.183.79]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAFM2l0B022582 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:02:47 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.147]) by xhc-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([173.37.183.79]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:02:47 -0600
From: "Rong Pan (ropan)" <ropan@cisco.com>
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] AQM schemes: Queue length vs. delay based
Thread-Index: AQHO3CzV4Y8AQmoIJE6ksgN55dTkopobOREAgADcp4CAACSPAP//9emAgABSr4CABi75AIAA200AgABagICAAB6IAIAAVMEAgADNWwCAACSHAP//sJoAgACnbQD//4M6gAArHEgA///qSYCAAAikgIAArCGA//+SLoA=
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:02:46 +0000
Message-ID: <CEABD7B8.55BA9%ropan@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <19813CF2-4C78-43B8-9B75-5A4E605BE54A@ifi.uio.no>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.1.120420
x-originating-ip: [128.107.165.143]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CEABD7B855BA9ropanciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Naeem Khademi <naeem.khademi@gmail.com>, Preethi Natarajan <preethi.cis@gmail.com>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [aqm] AQM schemes: Queue length vs. delay based
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 22:02:53 -0000

>>>>Well, sounds like your opinion about that consensus; no doubt that analysis makes a paper stronger, but also no point in speculating about the reasons why she never got it published.

You might speak with your opinion. I spoke with my scarred experience. Our original proposal of BCN/QCN got rejected in IEEE 802.1 because of lacking a control theoretic analysis. It was only after we presented control analysis in the fall of 2005 before PAR could be established. If you are interested in this, you can check out the history log here.

http://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/minutes/2005-09-minutes.pdf

http://www.ieee802.org/1/pages/802.1au.html

Regards,

Rong

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email