Re: [aqm] floating a draft charter

Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de> Thu, 30 May 2013 12:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
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 03CD121F9360 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 05:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.022
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, 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 Ohsevsg9Yr-R for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2013 05:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de [129.69.170.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66EA721F9354 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2013 05:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (netsrv1-c [10.11.12.12]) by mailsrv.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E5A60192; Thu, 30 May 2013 14:20:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from vpn-2-cl195 (vpn-2-cl195 [10.41.21.195]) by netsrv1.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C99AB60184; Thu, 30 May 2013 14:20:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
Organization: University of Stuttgart (Germany), IKR
To: aqm@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 14:20:51 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 (enterprise35 0.20101217.1207316)
References: <5190FB21.5080100@mti-systems.com>
In-Reply-To: <5190FB21.5080100@mti-systems.com>
X-KMail-QuotePrefix: >
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <201305301420.51606.mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de>
Cc: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Subject: Re: [aqm] floating a draft charter
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: Thu, 30 May 2013 12:21:09 -0000

Hi Wes,

thanks for writting up the chapter. The text reads really well.

I'm in favor of using AQM and ECN, but when I was asking on the mailing list, 
why ECN is not used, the main answer was it's too complex (that relates to 
AQM) and doesn't give large benefits (as operators focus on low loss rates 
and high utilization only). 

I believe the key to get AQM (and ECN) deployed is a very simple AQM scheme. 
And with simple I don't only mean simple to parametrize (like Codel) but also 
a simple and easy to understand algorithm. E.g. a step function like proposed 
with DCTCP (but higher threshold slightly below the may buffersize) to 
incentive deployment of ECN. Loss-based connections would experienced the 
same DropTail behavior than today, while ECN-enabled connections could 
benefit. If more connection support ECN in future the threshold could be 
lower. That's just a very brief idea (on deployment). 

But my point is, we should not only to standardize more and more AQM 
mechanisms because that's a large research area which maybe even should be 
homed in the IRTF, but we need to find actually deployment strategies. Having 
a working group on AQM will already help to make people aware of the topic 
and maybe think about using AQM. But only standardizing more and more AQM 
queue, might end up in investing a lot of working that no-one will ever use.

Mirja



On Monday 13 May 2013 16:39:29 Wesley Eddy wrote:
> Hello AQMers.  To get us a step closer to having a working
> group, we'll need a charter.
>
> I drafted the attached one, and think it's an okay starting
> point.  If we can either hack on this or if someone has a
> better one, I think it will be good to get done before the
> Berlin meeting, since we'd like to have a WG-forming BoF.
>
> FYI, I think we would logically adopt Fred's draft for the
> first milestone.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dipl.-Ing. Mirja Kühlewind
Institute of Communication Networks and Computer Engineering (IKR)
University of Stuttgart, Germany
Pfaffenwaldring 47, D-70569 Stuttgart

tel: +49(0)711/685-67973
email: mirja.kuehlewind@ikr.uni-stuttgart.de
web: www.ikr.uni-stuttgart.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------