From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from atl4mhob17.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob17.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.57]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE3DF200BD0 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 18:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.203]) by atl4mhob17.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9G10JWN028176 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 21:00:19 -0400 Received: (qmail 18297 invoked by uid 0); 16 Oct 2013 01:00:19 -0000 X-TCPREMOTEIP: 69.81.143.143 X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.129?) (wes@mti-systems.com@69.81.143.143) by 0 with ESMTPA; 16 Oct 2013 01:00:19 -0000 Message-ID: <525DE520.7040501@mti-systems.com> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 21:00:16 -0400 From: Wesley Eddy Organization: MTI Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: curtis@ipv6.occnc.com, Michael Richardson References: <201310141707.r9EH7wC7068478@gateway1.orleans.occnc.com> In-Reply-To: <201310141707.r9EH7wC7068478@gateway1.orleans.occnc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Akhtar, Shahid \(Shahid\)" , "iccrg@irtf.org" , "aqm@ietf.org" , bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] [aqm] [iccrg] AQM deployment status? X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 01:00:21 -0000 On 10/14/2013 1:07 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > So my first question to the AQM WG is "what is the scope of AQM WG > work in terms of where in the network this WG wants to focus?" If the > answer to that question is "everywhere", then we have to be aware that > conditions in core and conditions in home or enterprise are very > different. If the focus is on home, soho, and small business, then > the charter should say so (I don't think it is). The charter says: """ It is expected that some classes of algorithms will focus on software implementations, while others on existing or new hardware deployments, and algorithms may be specific to distinct scenarios. """ I would say anywhere that AQM algorithms can have a positive impact is in scope, and that it's understood and accepted that particular algorithms or tuning rules may not be ideal across different environments (or may not be easily implemented in different kinds of platforms). There was at least some talk of "applicability statements" for things that wind up being recommended by the working group. In my opinion, the home broadband router is one well-known case that may hold a lot of the initial attention in the working group, because the barriers to implementing/testing/deploying new algorithms for this case are less than for many others. We definitely did not want to limit the charter to this scenario though, and it is intentionally open to others. I hope this clears it up! -- Wes Eddy MTI Systems