Re: [aqm] BoF planning

Wesley Eddy <> Wed, 29 May 2013 16:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79CBC21F95E1 for <>; Wed, 29 May 2013 09:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.372
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jNwlI5ggd+vk for <>; Wed, 29 May 2013 09:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7901E21F96C2 for <>; Wed, 29 May 2013 09:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4TGMZon026535 for <>; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:22:35 -0400
Received: (qmail 24103 invoked by uid 0); 29 May 2013 16:22:35 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ? ( by 0 with ESMTPA; 29 May 2013 16:22:35 -0000
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 12:22:30 -0400
From: Wesley Eddy <>
Organization: MTI Systems
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Spencer Dawkins <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [aqm] BoF planning
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:22:45 -0000

On 5/29/2013 3:30 AM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
>> 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 know if this would be helpful for anyone except me, but ... if
> there are lessons learned about the obstacles proposed AQN mechanisms
> faced in getting deployed, that might be helpful to remind people about,
> whether at a BOF, or as a proposed working group starts to work.

To some extent, Fred's draft is touching on this, and if we have
an agenda slot to talk about his work there, then maybe Fred can
cover this?

>> In other words, one of the shorter timeslots should
>> suffice, I think.
> Makes sense to me. Were you thinking 60-minutes or 90 minutes?

I was thinking 60 minutes, but it could easily expand to 90.

For agenda items, I suggest:

5 min  - brief summary of AQM discussion in TSVAREA at last IETF
5 min  - summary of AQM mailing list discussion to-date
10 min - overview of draft charter, and the need/plan to get significant
         participation from OPS and other areas
10 min - look for consensus on whether packet scheduling also should be
         in-scope or whether the focus is on "pure" AQM
10 min - talk about the state of Fred's document
10 min - brief summary/summaries of ongoing AQM algorithm work(?)
10 min - call for consensus on chartering a WG in the TSV area

We might want to expand the time for Fred's document, to be able to
actually talk about the content to greater extent.

We might also want to add time if there are operator types of folks
that we could find in order to talk about their hopes, dreams, and
concerns about this work.

Of course, this is just my 2 cents, and others might have better ideas.

Wes Eddy
MTI Systems