Re: [aqm] BoF planning

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Mon, 13 May 2013 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
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 5BD7821F9227 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 08:22:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.372
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 lvs-TMqNZAlu for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 May 2013 08:22:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out5.uio.no (mail-out5.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:10::17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D86821F92C5 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 May 2013 08:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx3.uio.no ([129.240.10.44]) by mail-out5.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1UbuZk-0000KX-9b; Mon, 13 May 2013 17:22:08 +0200
Received: from 213.246.16.62.customer.cdi.no ([62.16.246.213] helo=[192.168.0.103]) by mail-mx3.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1UbuZj-0005xU-Rq; Mon, 13 May 2013 17:22:08 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <5190FCF5.20200@mti-systems.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 17:22:05 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2D4A7D7F-C60C-42EC-B648-A87B088CAACE@ifi.uio.no>
References: <5190FCF5.20200@mti-systems.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 3 msgs/h 1 sum rcpts/h 8 sum msgs/h 4 total rcpts 4241 max rcpts/h 40 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, TVD_RCVD_IP=0.001, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 43E890F3075ADEB5F10016D675DAF4EAC325FC20
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 62.16.246.213 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 526 max/h 8 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Cc: aqm@ietf.org, David Ros <David.Ros@telecom-bretagne.eu>
Subject: Re: [aqm] BoF planning
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: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:22:20 -0000

On May 13, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> wrote:

> For planning an AQM BoF in Berlin, my thought is that
> a rather short BoF to beat up the charter and scope of
> work is what we'd want.
> 
> The problem is pretty well understood, and I don't think
> more than a very brief overview is needed for people that
> might be interested from other areas.
> 
> I don't think we want to deep-dive into algorithms at this
> BoF, other than to show that they are becoming an active
> area of work again, that drafts are being brought to the
> IETF, and that there is interest in getting them done as
> IETF-stream RFCs.
> 
> In other words, one of the shorter timeslots should
> suffice, I think.

… and we have asked for a long one for ICCRG, so folks who do want to discuss details of current algorithms have a place to go  :-)

Cheers,
Michael