Protocol Action: 'IETF Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management' to Best Current Practice (draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-11.txt)

The IESG <> Thu, 26 March 2015 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE261B2F18; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:09:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nxSDi9HnfQ2u; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2298E1B2F2C; Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:09:12 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <>
To: IETF-Announce <>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'IETF Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management' to Best Current Practice (draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-11.txt)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.13.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 14:09:12 -0700
Archived-At: <>
Cc: aqm mailing list <>, aqm chair <>, RFC Editor <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:09:15 -0000

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IETF Recommendations Regarding Active Queue Management'
  (draft-ietf-aqm-recommendation-11.txt) as Best Current Practice

This document is the product of the Active Queue Management and Packet
Scheduling Working Group.

The IESG contact persons are Spencer Dawkins and Martin Stiemerling.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:

Technical Summary

This document is a complete rework of the recommendations to have some form of 
active queue management in ideally every queue. While RFC2309 (1998) was mostly 
concerned around network stability, and made recommendations which did not 
appeal to operators (universal deployment of RED, which has been found to be 
particularly hard to configure correctly), this revised document includes the 
lessons learned over the past years. Also, the main focus is on reducing network 
latency, while still delivering improvements to network stability. It contains
a number of requirements, that a modern AQM mechanism should fulfill, without
endorsing one specific method.

Working Group Summary

There was consensus early on about the aim and technical content of this 
document. However, specific wording (e.g. carrying over text from RFC2309, as 
this document started off as a 2309bis draft) was objected to.

Also, the question if this document should update or obsolete the earlier BCP 
(which was the result of discussions on the end2end mailing list, prior of 
formation of the IRTF) has been disussed eagerly.

On the technical grounds to argue for obsoleting the earlier BCP, this document 
specifically deprecates RED in favor of one of potentially several more modern 
AQM algorithms. Further, a point has been made that since it is not necessary to 
read RFC2309 to arrive at a sound understanding of the IETF (WG) consensus 
position around AQM, and the deviation is large enough with little overlap, having 
this document update 2309 was deemed less appropriate than obsoleting it.

Finally, one active participant has expressed very strong objections to some of 
the points summarized above, but later commented that he will accept his 
position as "in the rough". So, even though this was voiced at one point in 
time, an appeal is not expected.

Document Quality

As a BCP, a number of operators and developers are following up on the updated 
recommendations. Newer mechanisms that fulfill the updated requirements have 
been developed by multiple parties and are already being deployed by third 
parties (e.g. DOCSIS PIE in Cable Modems). 

Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the 

Yes; As a recommendation, it provides the necessary guidance when mechanisms are 
developed. Also, interoperability between AQMs is not as strict as in other 
areas, as many variants can be deployed along a path, as long as some over-
arching design principles are adhered to.

Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough 
review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the 
document had no substantive issues? 

John Leslie and Bob Briscoe made comments that improved the overall document 
text, to align with the technical aim. However, these changes did not modify the 
technical content.


The Document Shepherd is Richard Scheffenegger.
The Responsible Area Director is Martin Stiemerling.