On 1/22/2016 1:32 PM, Klatsky, Carl wrote:
Wes and all,
My comment is in regard to Polina’s comment “The WG currently has two
AQMs (dropping/marking policy) in last call. Did someone evaluate
these AQMs according to the specified guidelines?”. As I read over
draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines, I did not think the objective of this
memo was to arrive at consensus to select one specific AQM. I thought
the objective was to publish guidelines for implementers & service
providers on how they can select an AQM that is best for their
environment. And further that both AQMs in last call would complete
the process as valid AQMs for implementers & service providers as
available to use in their environment, with the guidelines helping
them to decide which is best for them. Some may chose PIE, some may
chose FQ_CODEL. And possibly other future AQMs would go through the
IETF process for publication, and that would be an additional option
for implementers & service providers to evaluate according to the
guidelines as best for their environment.
Is my understand of draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines correct?
Yes, you're correct! My assumption is that someone like a service
provider would have an idea of some of the ranges of values (rates,
delays, asymmetries, etc) appropriate for their environment, and would
be able to use the evaluation guidelines effectively.
I do also (personally) think that if there's a desire to go
standards-track (rather than just experimental) with AQM algorithms,
that having a fairly explicit evaluation of the algorithms with regard
to the guidelines would be very helpful, exactly as Polina asked about.
But I don't think this has really happened, and don't think it's
necessary at all for experimental RFCs.
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
