Re: [aqm] BoF planning

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Wed, 29 May 2013 16:45 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
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 6386021F96DB for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2013 09:45:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.372
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jLQW+-35sk45 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 May 2013 09:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1D5821F96CF for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2013 09:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.203]) by atl4mhob10.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r4TGiouM031078 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:44:50 -0400
Received: (qmail 12864 invoked by uid 0); 29 May 2013 16:44:50 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ?172.27.250.182?) (wes@mti-systems.com@63.226.32.150) by 0 with ESMTPA; 29 May 2013 16:44:50 -0000
Message-ID: <51A6307D.2090302@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 12:44:45 -0400
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
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: Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu>
References: <5190FCF5.20200@mti-systems.com> <51A5AE9F.30905@wonderhamster.org> <51A62B46.90401@mti-systems.com> <51A62F27.6030707@internet2.edu>
In-Reply-To: <51A62F27.6030707@internet2.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: aqm@ietf.org
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: Wed, 29 May 2013 16:45:02 -0000

On 5/29/2013 12:39 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> On 05/29/13 12:22, Wesley Eddy allegedly wrote:
>> I was thinking 60 minutes, but it could easily expand to 90.
> 
> If it were 90 minutes you could expand on "brief summary/summaries of
> ongoing AQM algorithm work".  10 minutes is close to nothing, you can't
> get into the substantive issues.
> 

Yeah, if people want to do that, we should.  My thought was only that
for a BoF, we should be showing whether or not there are people who
will do the work, and that the details of the algorithms and how they
perform on test data sets might be too much.

By the way, so far I think we've only heard about CoDel and PIE being
written as I-Ds ... if there are other "next generation" AQMs that
people are working on, or existing algorithms that people think should
be progressed in this WG, we should definitely get those onto the
radar as well.

-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems