Subject: [aqm] aqm conference call results?

From: Dave Taht <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:29:14 -0700

there some slides presented that I'd like to refer to as to the aqm
evaluation guide's directions that I'd like to see again. Link?

As it is being broken up into an overview and a second document
detailing tests, I'd like people to look over the tests proposed in

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarker-rmcat-eval-test-01

as a possible inspiration. While I like the above a lot, it bothers me
that it is only targeted at very low bandwidth scenarios (4mbit being
the topmost).

There are hopefully other tests proposed by other relevant working
groups (ippm, http 2.0, sctp come to mind immediately), that I'd like
to be aware of, and yet don't have the energy to sort through each wg
to find. If there is a way to get a list of tests each wg considers
important to work with, that would be a starting point.

-- 
Dave Täht

---

From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 17:43:38 +0000

> that it is only targeted at very low bandwidth scenarios (4mbit being

I would expect that’s a bang-for-buck issue. The same problems happen at 4 GBPS that happen at 4 MBPS, but they have important differences. A session that moves a certain amount of data moves 1000 times faster, and you might have 1000 times as many parallel sessions, with the “law of large numbers” implications.

> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

---

From: Nicolas KUHN <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:00:19 +0200

Dear Dave, 

> evaluation guide's directions that I'd like to see again. Link?

I attached them to this email. 

> as a possible inspiration.

AFAIK, in the RMCAT group, there are two working documents
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-criteria-01
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarker-rmcat-eval-test-01

I think that what we had written ( in evaluation-guidelines-00 ) tried to be close to both [1] and [2]. Our idea was then to split our original document in two and produce an equivalent to [1] in the update version ( evaluation-guidelines-01 ). This document  would focus on AQM related issues and explains what aspects must be assessed, before diving into specific tests details such as it is done in [2]. 

Regards, 

Nicolas 

> While I like the above a lot, it bothers me