Subject: [aqm] Comment about Proposed Charter

From: "Francini, Andrea (Andrea)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 16:12:18 +0000

A comment about the WG proposed charter as posted at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-aqm/:

Where it says "minimize standing queues", I would expect also a reference to "maximize [or retain/protect/not  compromise] link utilization". Otherwise any queue management scheme that keeps the standing queue small (and sometimes empty) without being unfair and without causing global synchronization could be considered acceptable irrespective of the drop in link utilization (-1%, -10%, -20%, ...) that it induces by occasionally emptying the queue (e.g., think of a RED instance configured with a maximum drop probability that is too large for the traffic mix that it must handle). 

Andrea

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:57:15 -0400

Francini, Andrea (Andrea) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> A comment about the WG proposed charter as posted at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-aqm/:

   (NB: on IESG agenda for 29 August)

> Where it says "minimize standing queues", I would expect also a reference
> to "maximize [or retain/protect/not  compromise] link utilization".

   There indeed is a balancing act -- but it needs to be tilted in favor
of limiting time-in-queue.

> Otherwise any queue management scheme that keeps the standing queue
> small (and sometimes empty)

   Indeed, simply dropping every packet that arrives while a previous
packet isn't still being sent would "minimize standing queues" ;^(

> without being unfair and without causing global synchronization could
> be considered acceptable irrespective of the drop in link utilization
> (-1%, -10%, -20%, ...)...

   I suspect that our intent is to allow ~ 1% drop in utilization; and
I also suspect that anything which dropped utilization by 10% would
not be deployed near the backbone.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>