[dtaht99]

I wish! QoS could have been a good term to keep using if the existing deployments of it on the Internet it wasn't hopelessly mapped generally to mere packet prioritization (diffserv) which doesn't actually work on today's internet.

QoE is a better, less overloaded, in the "qualitative, perceived" sort of description.

So (after endless debates) - we defined SQM as as a superset of classic as-defined-for-internet QoS and hoped for the best. (https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Smart_Queu... )

There's been plethora of other trade names for what we do with htb+fq_codel - streamboost, adaptive qos, etc.

I like that eero, edgerouter, and openwrt and derivatives also call what we do sqm. It simplifies the discussion, and the core scripts for linux generically are available as the sqm-scripts on github.

I also hope we see more RFPs specifying RFC8290.

[rusk]

> deployments of it on the Internet it wasn't hopelessly mapped generally to mere packet prioritization (diffserv)

Sorry yeah, I forgot about how the term has been mangled over the years. I was coming from a 3GPP perspective where the term is specifically defined as experience [0]

In particular:

* only the QoS perceived by end-user matter

* QoS definitions have to be future proof;

* QoS has to be provided end-to-end.

* QoS attributes (or mapping of them) should not be restricted to one or few external QoS control mechanisms

Not the first time the ivory tower of Telecomms has been out of touch with the outside world ...

[0] 4.1 (p. 7) https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_ts/123100_123199/123107/05...