Scheffenegger, Richard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This is to quickly summarize the WG chairs understanding of the status
> of the above mentioned draft and next steps:
>
> After the extensive discussion regarding the intended status and
> relation to RFC2309, a significant consensus has been reached to
> proceed by obsoleting RFC2309 with this new draft.
(I did not, and do not, join that consensus.)
> The objections raised both on procedural grounds (RFC2309 was the
> output of the E2E group, best compared to an IRTF document today),
I am genuinely interested in who raise that objection (I didn't).
> and content status ("invalidating" RED) have been thoroughly looked
> at.
I'll try to restate my impression of that part:
- several folks did not want to "invalidate RED" at this stage of our
work, but understood we might recommend against it in the future;
- the authors stated an intent to supersede the recommendation to use
RED as quickly as possible;
- someone else said that there is no such recommendation in 2309.
> The conclusion Reached is that the document should proceed becoming
> a BCP that obsoletes the older recommendations, instead of updating
> them and potentially creating confusion.
IMHO, the document as it stands remains confusing -- because the
reader has to guess the intent of seemingly-small wording changes,
instead of having a clear statement of what we intend to supersede.
> The Chairs believe that after this extensive discussions, the path
> forward is clear and there exists consensus on that.
This "extensive discussion" seems to have entirely avoided the
point I _did_ raise: that the document would be a lot easier to read
if we didn't have to carry over text from 2309.
Perhaps I _am_ in the rough, but it seems to me I'm not the only
person who has been ignored here.
> The authors will do a final update reflecting this intended status and
> relation to the older document, and once that is done, we will proceed
> with submitting it for IESG review, as the WGLC has been concluded with
> the above result.
I don't intend to formally appeal this statement of consensus (though
I would appreciate the Document Shepherd noting the consensus is "rough");
but I will have to raise a few of my points during IETF Last-Call. :^(
--
John Leslie <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
