On 11/8/13, 2:22 PM, "Eggert, Lars" <[email protected]> wrote:
>One remaining question is what will happen if the AQM WG - after adopting >the PIE contribution - makes modifications. Is CableLabs prepared to >update their specs based on whet we'll do, referring to an eventual IETF >RFC rather than maintaining a separate spec? Or will CableLabs also >continue work on the spec and we may end up with eventual divergence? (Or >will the CableLabs spec of PIE remain frozen at its current version?) We would like convergence as well. Our intent is that the algorithm can be tweaked after deployment via software update, but there will of course be limitations to how much can be changed. Whether improvements come from within IETF community or CableLabs community, we'll aim for maintaining alignment. That may mean that we'll push back if changes can't be accommodated in our networks, or if IPR issues arise. Assuming that it is feasible to maintain alignment with an eventual IETF RFC, we would strongly consider updating our specification to point to it (I think that would be a good outcome). >Having asked that, I want to make clear that the working relationship >with CableLabs has been good, and it's not that I'm expecting problems >here. It's after all - at least at the moment - the same people working >on PIE here and there. It's just that I've been involved in cases in the >IETF before where things fell through the cracks when two SDOs >simultaneously worked on something, and it's messy to create alignment >after that has happened. So an explicit agreement about how this will go >forward would be good to have. > >Thanks, >Lars > > _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
