On 1. apr. 2014, at 14:11, Wesley Eddy <w...@mti-systems.com> wrote:
> Hello AQMers. As chairs, Richard and I had been planning to let > the evaluation guidelines converge and then use those to guide > adoption of algorithm documents. > > However, we now think there may be value in not waiting so long, > and getting some algorithm documents moving along more quickly. > > We hope you can provide some feedback on the plan below: > > 1) Starting soon, we may look to adopt a small number of algorithm > drafts for Experimental, with the goal that by doing so, it will > increase the number of eyeballs and independent reviews of them, and > enhance the quality, since people may be implementing to the drafts > in order to test using the evaluation guidelines. Each algorithm > *must* clearly identify which types of use cases / scenarios it is > targeted for. > > 2) Adoption of an algorithm spec as a working group draft will require > working group consensus that the algorithm looks attractive to > experiment with for the stated scenarios, and multiple parties will > plan to be looking at it, testing, analyzing, providing feedback, > etc. > > 3) The evaluation guidelines / scenarios drafts being worked on > separately will guide the later selection of one or more Experimental > algorithms to become Proposed Standards with applicability > statements for the scenarios they have been evaluated in. > > We're interested to know if the working group thinks this sounds like > a good idea, bad idea, or any other thoughts. I think it sounds like a good idea! Nice to get stuff documented and somewhat stabilized soon, IMHO. Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
