Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?

Wesley Eddy <> Thu, 14 December 2017 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55931126B7E for <>; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:59:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BxjouWR5SOdO for <>; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64B951243F3 for <>; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x28so15027329ita.0 for <>; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:59:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=N0zIF4nwc3PEzwmnrvs9gJxL5/OeNyq/cd/bHyGNj44=; b=PUSowVlUhRf1Vw+yeZ371MsnoZ0/M0xdFzPBjoL3i4xykWUpsQrnnZMR1n66y+jeLj D7RsmKxkUlPlIoqfRIEUaMa4NKXIvjW63SLYV2cg4bYMaRenr/ZXlOrqL/u77QuSB48x Vc4qWdWZ7icua9o+lrY7L4saov0KnjAXV/ajrQGRb0tZwigku1fuO9bp7svc+uwD6Bsd HHsrJUSSAFmbBMCA123iCbpne7UQIW/TtIfhDyRF/QRh8mE4V9dKiGmTnmhiQeg6NUSw Y7N1GyF/dXIKb2Ud/qFk9ageI+L1vE1zbzkg5MGxHdxKkXf9idATu+sBwxFkA1C2tayl zXaA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=N0zIF4nwc3PEzwmnrvs9gJxL5/OeNyq/cd/bHyGNj44=; b=AQizYKT1z3gav5V4plTIesiUqklLc60AsCV9CCknuY1+ITxs/NO+t7WJ9lSO+UT+b1 L74i9wiwfd+mBuxsdFa8yTwNW2DGkazkjx8xOADqOtlixz74qmRzk0viqwjQgORbpsoG UgKpfurZXF9FfkAqNHrffu+d/tn7wBV0k+76xqN0USjbbDJlrTbSa9kIHRIOR/X0GzC3 58PvavFFaxNHYflRoQFxGhr2FHpUymP8Ge8tlFOMO+PAEDVbXDSsTRvPIWaWdYV2445S ENR6izFmegeKJ2lCYdrU9Hc+cQYD/aPXlp7myfwR8szZCHvttu9dSOQCoZnaWpbUdvMf S3HA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mIggAvZQSL2mMjBDCH15nOJcGkKPO1TN6Yv8QSbGc4dVCZlhrO3 2MzTG+KLBZvwUhQY+heSkK2trg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotzAbvHpDjcDlMB3rKry+JQAa9U8OUlyqK/krTxmhP3L/cDKVDtfR/OZC2XRbvHuT377ciJ6Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id g15mr5103226itb.141.1513288786799; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:59:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id a69sm3129878itc.18.2017. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:59:46 -0800 (PST)
To: Roland Bless <>, "" <>, "LAUTENSCHLAEGER, Wolfram (Wolfram)" <>
References: <>
From: Wesley Eddy <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 16:59:45 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Status of the GSP AQM?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:59:49 -0000

On 12/14/2017 4:35 PM, Roland Bless wrote:
> Hi folks,
> I was wondering what happened to the GSP AQM proposal
> (draft-lauten-aqm-gsp see
> (
> Discussion seems to have ended after IETF 93 and we probably
> missed the point of discussing WG adoption.
> IMHO this AQM should also be documented as RFC. It performs extremely
> well in some settings (better than CoDel or PIE) and its implementation
> complexity is also lower. Wolfram, are you interested in finishing this?
> Should we continue in tsvwg?

I mentioned GSP as a possible work item, back when we were discussing 
rechartering, but apparently it was not compelling to the group at that 

When we did the AQM algorithm adoption call ~2014, GSP appeared to be 
basically viable technically, but there wasn't evidence that multiple 
parties were interested in working with it enough to go forward (not 
just working the document, but implementing, simulating, testing, 
analyzing, deploying, etc).   There is a thread in the archives with 
subject "[aqm] adoption call: algorithm drafts".

I haven't noticed a change in activity around GSP since then, but 
apologize if I'm just ignorant of it!