Re: [aqm] working group status and rechartering vs. closing

[Dave Täht]

On 6/20/16 12:46 PM, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
> Hi Dave, hi all,
> 
>> Am 02.06.2016 um 18:54 schrieb Dave Täht :
>>
>> My own desire is to see more link layers - wifi, 5g, 6lowpan, homeplug,
>> especially, explored with more implementations. There is also new stuff
>> like threads, wifi direct/p2p, and this new ieee effort,
>> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/corpchan/sfocus/index.html#std1c
>>
>> These are the growth nodes of the internet today, with special problems
>> (non-duplex shared media with exponential backoff, handoff issues for
>> mobility, packet aggregation (wifi, 5g), offloads (ethernet), that are
>> only partially addressed by the aqm/fq technologies developed to date.
>>
>> To me this also requires tighter interfacing with the IEEE especially on
>> new stuff like 802.11ad0, as well as 3gpp (5g)
> 
> For me aqm that focuses on wireless networks is also an interesting topic 
> where a lot of work is going on. 

Where?

>The question is are people interested to bring this work to the IETF (writing 
>drafts) 

I think my points were more that the existing ietf work needed to be
successfully exported. Somehow.

>and is there enough energy in this group to finalize the work?

Not me. I long ago ran out of funding to work on standards.

Even if I had funding levels equal to the commitment, my energy and
enthusiasm for any new paperwork is at a low ebb. I would much rather
rejoin the vibrant dynamics of the open source world where the time
difference between an idea and an implementation is merely a long
sleepless weekend.

If ever again I stumble across a techno-logic advance worth bringing
in front of the ietf, I will do my best to sucker someone else into
doing so. ;)

> 
> Mirja
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
> 

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Re: [aqm] working group status and rechartering vs. closing

[Mirja Kühlewind]

Hi Dave, hi all,

> Am 02.06.2016 um 18:54 schrieb Dave Täht :
> 
> My own desire is to see more link layers - wifi, 5g, 6lowpan, homeplug,
> especially, explored with more implementations. There is also new stuff
> like threads, wifi direct/p2p, and this new ieee effort,
> http://standards.ieee.org/develop/corpchan/sfocus/index.html#std1c
> 
> These are the growth nodes of the internet today, with special problems
> (non-duplex shared media with exponential backoff, handoff issues for
> mobility, packet aggregation (wifi, 5g), offloads (ethernet), that are
> only partially addressed by the aqm/fq technologies developed to date.
> 
> To me this also requires tighter interfacing with the IEEE especially on
> new stuff like 802.11ad0, as well as 3gpp (5g)

For me aqm that focuses on wireless networks is also an interesting topic where 
a lot of work is going on. The question is are people interested to bring this 
work to the IETF (writing drafts) and is there enough energy in this group to 
finalize the work?

Mirja



___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

Re: [aqm] working group status and rechartering vs. closing

[Bob Briscoe]

Dave,

On 02/06/16 17:54, Dave Täht wrote:


On 6/1/16 7:10 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote:

Hello; the AQM list has been mostly quiet recently, other than
discussion around the IESG comments on our drafts as they progress
through the IESG review, so I thought it would be a good time to send a
status snapshot and start more discussion about rechartering.

The datatracker page tells the story well, I believe:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/aqm/documents/

The main thing we need to work on before closing/rechartering is getting
the CoDel draft finished.

What remains to be done? (I've lost track). Can we focus on it and
finish the darn thing?

It is sad that the algorithm that essentially spawned the formation of
this working group remains un-rfc'd.

It's had influence elsewhere, also - outside of networking. The thinking
behind it has just had a rather nice patch set arrive for
making background disk writeback more invisible to foreground applications:

https://lwn.net/Articles/685894/



I believe the editors have the working group
last call comments and are planning an update to address them.  The goal
should be to close the loop on these with the reviewers and get this
into the IESG's queue before the next meeting in July.

We are planning for a 1-hour meeting at the next IETF meeting in July,
in order to discuss next-steps for the working group, which could be
either shutting down or rechartering.

We succeeded early on in getting RFC 7567 published and it looks like
we'll soon have Experimental RFCs for 2 of the algorithms most people
have worked with to-date.  Both specs became more clear and were
improved through the WG reviews.  Additionally, we also have RFC 7806,
the ECN benefits document, the characterization guidelines, FQ-CoDel,
and DOCSIS-PIE descriptions that were completed.

We should think about what would be needed going forward.  Some
questions for rechartering might be:

-  What would the group expect to advance algorithms from Experimental
to Standards Track?  (e.g. more data from real deployments, more
analysis of edge cases, etc) ... and are there people with time and
support to meet whatever those expectations are?

My own desire is to see more link layers - wifi, 5g, 6lowpan, homeplug,
especially, explored with more implementations. There is also new stuff
like threads, wifi direct/p2p, and this new ieee effort,
http://standards.ieee.org/develop/corpchan/sfocus/index.html#std1c

These are the growth nodes of the internet today, with special problems
(non-duplex shared media with exponential backoff, handoff issues for
mobility, packet aggregation (wifi, 5g), offloads (ethernet), that are
only partially addressed by the aqm/fq technologies developed to date.

To me this also requires tighter interfacing with the IEEE especially on
new stuff like 802.11ad0, as well as 3gpp (5g)

Strongly agree.
I've been dealing with liaison correspondence with IEEE and 3GPP on 
behalf of the IETF (tsvwg) about misunderstandings in the implementation 
of ECN (which obviously requires an AQM). The general summary is:

* IEEE: no activity on this at all at the moment.
* 3GPP: 21 3GPP specs recommend ECN and therefore AQM (initially for 
voice over LTE). See slide 5 of my update to tsvwg 
 at 
the April'16 IETF. Two of these 3GPP docs specify the radio access 
network part. In them, the IETF's specs have been misunderstood, because 
the word "congestion" has been misunderstood as something that is 
binary, so when there is radio "congestion", it is assumed you have to 
do 100% marking and 0% when there is no "congestion".


However, the upside is that implementations are rare or non-existent :(
We need to somehow impress on implementers of radio network equipment 
how significant the improvements are from AQM, and explain AQM as 
something that is for all applications, not just one. Interactions with 
power control and radio resource control are hard - a group of us have 
started working on this, because it's very hard for RAN equipment 
designers to translate current AQM designs to address their scenario.




Other stuff - hardware multiqueue for multicore cpus, bql-like answers
at lower levels, and exactly how much should/must be pushed into
hardware logic rather than handled in software needs to start getting
resolved.

Ways for isps and vendors to more easily push out proper configs
(tr-069) for their link layers (dsl's variety of such is particularly
problematic)...

So my most important issues for future work tend to cross layers and wgs
and standards orgs.
Agree. In order to make this possible, we are going to need to work out 
the factors that are common to many L2 technologies, and which ones are 
specific. Otherwise we will just burn our time for ever trying to design 
and implement for each different technology.


Should we ensure that a significant part of the AQM's charter/agenda is 
about explanation/liaison/socialisation?

I'm 

[aqm] working group status and rechartering vs. closing

[Wesley Eddy]

Hello; the AQM list has been mostly quiet recently, other than 
discussion around the IESG comments on our drafts as they progress 
through the IESG review, so I thought it would be a good time to send a 
status snapshot and start more discussion about rechartering.


The datatracker page tells the story well, I believe: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/aqm/documents/


The main thing we need to work on before closing/rechartering is getting 
the CoDel draft finished.  I believe the editors have the working group 
last call comments and are planning an update to address them.  The goal 
should be to close the loop on these with the reviewers and get this 
into the IESG's queue before the next meeting in July.


We are planning for a 1-hour meeting at the next IETF meeting in July, 
in order to discuss next-steps for the working group, which could be 
either shutting down or rechartering.


We succeeded early on in getting RFC 7567 published and it looks like 
we'll soon have Experimental RFCs for 2 of the algorithms most people 
have worked with to-date.  Both specs became more clear and were 
improved through the WG reviews.  Additionally, we also have RFC 7806, 
the ECN benefits document, the characterization guidelines, FQ-CoDel, 
and DOCSIS-PIE descriptions that were completed.


We should think about what would be needed going forward.  Some 
questions for rechartering might be:


-  What would the group expect to advance algorithms from Experimental 
to Standards Track?  (e.g. more data from real deployments, more 
analysis of edge cases, etc) ... and are there people with time and 
support to meet whatever those expectations are?


- Are the current couple of algorithms all that's needed for the 
Internet, or are there other algorithms building on these, learning from 
experience with them, or making other improvements which we should work 
on?  (e.g. we have the DualQ draft, and recently the GSP draft has been 
updated)


- Are there ongoing field deployments, research projects, and other 
efforts that it will be good to discuss together in the working group, 
towards improving or advancing the current algorithms, or towards new 
algorithms?


- Is there other operations experience or considerations that should be 
documented?


Of course, this is not a complete list, but I thought formulating a few 
questions like this could help in determining if a recharter is 
justified rather than simply closing.  Your thoughts on these and any 
other relevant topics will be useful to hear on the mailing list and in 
Berlin.



___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm