Characterization Guidelines for Active Queue Management (AQM)
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: "IETF-Announce" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, "The IESG" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Document Action: 'AQM Characterization Guidelines' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-13.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'AQM Characterization Guidelines' (draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-13.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Mirja Kühlewind and Spencer Dawkins. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines/
Technical Summary Unmanaged large buffers in today's networks have given rise to a slew of performance issues. These performance issues can be addressed by some form of Active Queue Management (AQM) mechanism, optionally in combination with a packet scheduling scheme such as fair queuing. This document describes various criteria for performing precautionary characterizations of AQM schemes. Working Group Summary Over it's lifetime, this document changed scope a couple of times. It currently contains guidance for characterizing AQM algorithm performance, though it had started out to prescribe evaluation methods for AQM algorithms being considered in the working group. As time went on, the focus shifted, and the WG did not use the guidelines in a prescriptive way. The current guidelines are not fully parameterized, and it is assumed that someone performing a characterization would consider how to parameterize configurations relevant to their own networks or scenarios of interest. Ideally there would be running code (as mentioned by Dave, among others) for performing the characterizations, e.g. implemented using some tool such as ns-3, mininet, etc, however, this has not come about yet. Where it sits now, the document is suitable as Informational guidance, but it is not a prescriptive and fully defined spec, like for example, an IPPM metric would be. It simply collects guidance and description of the set of things to look at and the measurements of interest in common AQM performance testing situations. Document Quality The document is of sufficient quality that someone (e.g. a graduate student) could read it and implement proper tests. Personnel Wesley Eddy (firstname.lastname@example.org) is the shepherd, and Mirja Kühlewind (email@example.com) is the AD.