Re: [aqm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11.txt> (AQM Characterization Guidelines) to Informational RFC

My basic objection to this entire draft is that it needs to be made
executable in some benchmarking suite before being considered as a
standard.

While it has many seemingly desirable stats and figures
few have been demonstrated as useful or used in the real world, nor have
any of the aqms under evaluation already been tested under it.

This has been my steady objection to it from day one, and as a
co-developer of a benchmark suite (flent.org) that *does* rigorously
explore some of the complexities aqm and fq technologies introduce,
with suitably complex tests, topologies, and graphs, I have long been
doubtful that the simple metrics and models used here were useful or
sufficient.

I have given detailed critiques of each metric to the wg before, and
could again, but my main point remained:

Rough consensus *and* Running Code is needed here.

And with that, I'd stopped paying attention to it, until code materialized.

On 4/20/16 5:47 AM, The IESG wrote:
> 
> The IESG has received a request from the Active Queue Management and
> Packet Scheduling WG (aqm) to consider the following document:
> - 'AQM Characterization Guidelines'
>   <draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-11.txt> as Informational RFC
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-05-04. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> Abstract
> 
> 
>    Unmanaged large buffers in today's networks have given rise to a slew
>    of performance issues.  These performance issues can be addressed by
>    some form of Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism, optionally in
>    combination with a packet scheduling scheme such as fair queuing.
>    This document describes various criteria for performing precautionary
>    characterizations of AQM schemes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines/
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines/ballot/
> 
> 
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
> 