Re: [aqm] adoption of draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie-01

[Szilveszter Nadas <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thanks.

I suppose to add this information to the draft " DOCSIS modems do support multiple queues, but each queue is (generally) an independent MAC layer service, with independent QoS configuration and scheduling.".

Also on Mikael's comment. It would be good to add the purpose of the draft to the intro. I did the review with the assumption that the purpose is to document the DOCSIS PIE reommendation/solution. 

Cheers,
Sz.

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg White [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 16:47
To: Szilveszter Nadas; Scheffenegger, Richard; Mikael Abrahamsson; Dave Dolson
Cc: [e-mail]; '[e-mail]'
Subject: Re: [aqm] adoption of draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie-01

Szilveszter,

Thank you for the review and comments.  I will update the draft with your suggestions. 

On your question, DOCSIS-PIE does not utilize fair queuing.  DOCSIS modems do support multiple queues, but each queue is (generally) an independent MAC layer service, with independent QoS configuration and scheduling.

The general-purpose PIE algorithm does rate estimation so that it can work in systems where the egress rate is not otherwise known.  We did experiment with an FQ-PIE implementation, as described in:

http://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/DOCSIS-AQM_May2014.pdf

  
Even in this case, we chose to not utilize egress rate estimation.

-Greg



On 3/29/15, 3:16 AM, "Szilveszter Nadas" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>You have an interesting process to encourage mic comments. ;)
>
>Reviewed version: "draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie-00".
>
>I did read the document, looks good from clarity perspective. The 
>changes compared to PIE also look reasonable.
>
>I cannot judge however how well the algorithm estimates PIE behavior or 
>how good is it in general. I did not read the references.
>
>Questions:
>-" 3.2. Departure rate estimation" Pie implements a rate estimator 
>because it might be used with Fair Queueing schedulers. You write "
>Third, in the significant majority of cases, the departure rate, while 
>variable, is controlled by the modem itself via the pair of token 
>bucket rate shaping equations described". I assume that Fair Queueing 
>is either not implemented then in the modem or it is rarely used 
>together with PIE. Is it so, or do I misunderstand this? Please clarify 
>this for me and also in the document, if you think that is applicable!
>
>I propose the following updates (all optional in my view but it would 
>definitely help the reader):
>-State that the "[DOCSIS*" documents do contain simulation results. It 
>was not clear for me from just reading the draft.
>-Write a short (<0.5 page) summary of the simulation results in the 
>appendix.
>
>Cheers,
>Szilveszter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Scheffenegger, Richard [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 16:53
>To: Greg White; Mikael Abrahamsson; Dave Dolson; Szilveszter Nadas
>Cc: [e-mail]; '[e-mail]'
>Subject: RE: [aqm] adoption of draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie-01
>
>Hi group,
>
>as there haven't been any objections, but some indications of support 
>on the list, and based on the responses in the IETF92 meeting in 
>Dallas, we chairs think this document can be adopted as WG-item at this time.
>
>
>Greg, can you please upload the most recent version as 
>draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie-00?
>
>Also, as mentioned in the meeting, and to make true of my promise, I 
>would like to invite the following individuals to review this draft, 
>once the updated version becomes available.
>
>Mikael Abrahamsson
>Dave Dolson
>Szilveszter Nádas
>
>Mostly everybody else who has commented during the meeting is already 
>assigned to other documents (Nobody will be left out :)
>
>Thanks,
>  Richard (co-chair)
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: aqm [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Scheffenegger, 
>> Richard
>> Sent: Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2015 08:45
>> To: Greg White; '[e-mail]'
>> Cc: Rong Pan (ropan); [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [aqm] adoption of draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie-01
>> 
>> Hi Greg, group,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Regarding the adoption call, this is something we can actually (and
>> should) start on the list.
>> 
>> We can confirm that during the Dallas meeting in the room, but even 
>> before that, we'd like to get responses on the list now...
>> 
>> Perhaps we have some volunteers to review this new version as well...
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>>   Richard
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Greg White [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> > Sent: Donnerstag, 26. Februar 2015 01:13
>> > To: [e-mail]
>> > Cc: Rong Pan (ropan)
>> > Subject: Re: [aqm] agenda for IETF 92 / Dallas
>> >
>> > Wes & Richard,
>> >
>> > Unfortunately I will not be at IETF92 in person, but will attend
>> remotely.
>> >  For draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie, Rong & I updated it in January and 
>> > included a new appendix to give a change log, which reads:
>> >
>> > ===============
>> > Appendix B.  Change Log
>> > B.1.  Since draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie-01
>> >
>> >    Added Change Log.
>> >
>> >    Removed discussion of Packet drop de-randomization, Enhanced burst
>> >    protection, and 16ms update interval, as these are now included in
>> >    [I-D.ietf-aqm-pie].
>> >
>> > ===============
>> >
>> >
>> > Regarding WG adoption, I saw some support from Lars (and no
>> > objections)
>> to
>> > adopting it on an Informational track.   Will you do an official
>> adoption
>> > call at the Dallas meeting?
>> >
>> > -Greg
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2/23/15, 8:40 PM, "Wesley Eddy" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Greetings AQMers!  We requested a short AQM meeting slot at the 
>> > >upcoming IETF 92 meeting in Dallas, and we received a 1-hour slot 
>> > >on
>> Tuesday:
>> > >https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/92/agenda.html
>> > >
>> > >Since this is not a lot of time, we'll need to prioritize the work 
>> > >that is discussed to what requires the face-to-face time in order 
>> > >to make progress on.
>> > >
>> > >For active draft editors, please let us know via this list or 
>> > >[e-mail] what you think your meeting time needs 
>> > >are, so we can put together an agenda.  If you don't need meeting 
>> > >time now, or would like to use an interim telecon to assist in 
>> > >gathering feedback, please also let us know.
>> > >
>> > >For others, please read the drafts, comment on this mailing list, 
>> > >and help us to review and complete them:
>> > >https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/aqm/documents/
>> > >
>> > >Thanks in advance!
>> > >
>> > >--
>> > >Wes Eddy
>> > >MTI Systems
>> > >
>> > >_______________________________________________
>> > >aqm mailing list
>> > >[e-mail]
>> > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> aqm mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm