Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling
charter-ietf-aqm-01
Yes
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Ted Lemon)
No Objection
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Richard Barnes)
(Sean Turner)
(Stephen Farrell)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2013-09-11 for -00-01)
Unknown
Thanks for considering my previous comments. I'm still a "Yes", but on the new version of the charter ...
If working group charters are contracts, and I was co-chair for AQM, I would have absolutely no idea what this text obligates the working group to do.
Furthermore, the group
will jointly work with the Routing and Internet Area in order to
^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
involve vendors of networking equipment in the development of the
AQM mechanisms.
First, if there are specific working groups in INT and RTG that AQM should be "jointly working with", naming them would be helpful. I can make guesses, but the current text says AQM will work jointly with the Routing Area (which has 19 active working groups) and with the Internet Area (which has 23 active working groups), so I'm hoping we could narrow that down somewhat.
Second, what does "jointly work with" mean in practice? I note that SUNSET4 in INT has Tech Advisers from OPS, RTG and TSV. Are we talking about something like that? Are we expecting AQM documents to go through WGLCs in multiple working groups?
I'm guessing and I'm shooting in the dark, and I'm sure other ADs could think of other specific ways to accomplish what's being described in general terms. If I was co-chair, I'd want to know what the IESG intends that the working group will do.
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-08-25 for -00-00)
Unknown
Probably a nit... When these buffers fill, interactive applications and other traffic can be severely impacted or completely broken, due to high and potentially oscillating delays. It isn't the fact that the buffers fill that causes the problem. Indeed, one might argue that if they did fill we would see a bunch of different problems that the buffers were put in place to stop us seeing. maybe s/When these buffers will/When large numbers of packets are buffered/
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-09-11 for -00-01)
Unknown
Please consider the development of Standards Track Applicability Statements in this working group, rather than just Informational (or BCP) documents. AS seems the perfect way to propose the use of certain techniques, and to have those proposals mature along with the protocols (perhaps going from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard).
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
(was Block)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-09-12 for -00-01)
Unknown
Many AQM algorithms have been proposed in academic literature, but a smaller number are widely implemented and deployed. The goal of the working group is to produce recommendations that will actually be used, and algorithms that will actually be implemented, deployed in equipment, and enabled. What is the difference between "deployed in equipment" and "enabled"?
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-01)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Yes)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-08-29 for -00-00)
Unknown
I agree with Stewart's point about making router-builders more clearly involved.
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-09-11 for -00-01)
Unknown
Again, please change: OLD: The AQM working group will produce Informational, Best Current Practices, and Standards Track Applicability Statement documents NEW: The AQM working group will produce documents that... (You could change the "and" to an "or" if you really wanted to list the types of documents.) I think it's quite possible in the end that documents of this sort might end up on the standards track, or might be Informational, and I'd rather the WG not get into an argument about which is which. They should produce a consensus document with recommendations, and the WG and the IESG can figure out the appropriate status once we see the actual content of the document.
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-01)
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
(was Block)
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-09-12 for -00-01)
Unknown
Thank you for addressing my concern.