The following notes were taken on the AQM discussion within the TSVWG Session II at the Berlin IETF:


**  AQM chairs need followup on  status of PIE conflict between Informational and Experimental, which is it ??

** Recharter??

New work:
-- Slides from Wes.
Bob Briscoe -- is there something we can do to socialize AQM?? -- A new document advertising it??

Fred: We have a draft that was targeting experimental status, and we have push back from the IESGs that we need to describe the experiment.
Mirja: We talked, you just need to add text.
Fred: We’ll publish as Informational (Codel is Informational in the Draft header)
Gorry: Mirja (as AD) will follow-up with the WG Chairs.

Bob: Is there a chance for a short document that says something about what AQM solves?
Gorry: A little like the ECN benefits draft?
Roland Bless: Operators were reluctutant due to parameter problems, and sometimes feared to loose utilisation. The three AQM's have different properties as to loss (from experiments) -- maybe this is a good subject of a draft/paper?
Christian: We just had a discussion about what is the experiment? -- a experiment report would be very useful on what happened after AQM was deployed?

Michael Abrams: Operator talking to other people: People don't know about buffer bloat and
there is a lot of folks that need convincing -- We still have a lot of stuff to do in the operational aspect (5 years more work to do). Fault finding and monitoring is important also.
Michael Weltzl: Some algorithms have thresholds (PIE for example) -- The sections talk about future work should include that this threshold should be evaluated as we proceed to proposed standard.
Koen: Sometimes having large buffers is *good* with existing networks -- and if you cut down on size of buffers you impact existing applications. Operators are very concerned about existing customer experience. Having config small AQM may have a big impact. There is a blocking case that brings compromise. We need more evaluation, and to understand customer experience.
Bob: This is about writing up experiments on the existing AQM’s.
Gorry: Is it research lab experience or deployment?
Koen: We have lab experience that informs customers of what the impact is.
Aaron Falk: +1 to having a experimental experience report -- IAB may be able to help bring operators and others together (based on report).
Dave Taht: I strongly agree with the need for more research -- could this be in ICCRG? -- As to operators its an outreach to nanog or the BBforum -- ongoing work in AQM -- bring this work back into TSVWG is to get wider coverage would like to see the AQM WG closed.
Fred Baker: Cable Labs specified use of PIE for DOCSIS.
Andrew: There is other work about doing AQM in the lower layers, that is baking that might be relevant to here when ready in a year or so.

** Does anyone want to do algorithm twiddling?
Dave Taht: No, get current algorithms deployed.
Michael Wetzl: Presentation on research on new methods always welcome in ICCRG.
Bob Briscoe: It is important to also consider attacks against any AQM.
** ?? -- FQ-Codel solves a lot of these problems in the network.
Fred Baker: FQ-PIE -- has had two proposals, but it does not matter how you drop.
Christian: Should there be the same relation between next AQM and ICCRG as the same as the security world, where we do research in a security research group and then if they get ready to come in then they bring them into the security world. So maybe ICCRG should be place for new algorithms.
Andrew MacGregor: Plus 1 on that -- AQM goes idle until ICCRG explores new algorithms.
Michael Weltzl: ICCRG used to be very busy.. but there is space on the agenda for AQM.

** New congestion control algorithms in general should go first for discussion at ICCRG.