Dear wes: Please take my name off the cc if you want your co's mail server to not bounce my mail. the ietf's list mailer handles it fine.
On 2/4/16 10:33 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote: > Since none of the questions outstanding from WGLC seem to impact the > DOCSIS PIE draft directly, I think that it is ready to move forward: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie/ > > Since it's describing what has already been done in DOCSIS, the > Informational status seems appropriate, and consistent with other > similar RFCs, so I think we're good there. I do not really understand how this criterion promotes docsis-pie from experimental to informational (or the reverse: demotes fq_codel from informational to experimental, which happened this morning... I realize now that there was a call as to what status it should be a while. I figured silence meant there was consensus on informational, so I was a bit surprised when it was changed. You got my attention! so, what criteria apply for experimental vs informational vs standards track? What blockers apply later, were, for example, another RFC to rely on an experimental vs informational fq_codel rfc? For example, right now, fq_codel is the defacto fq+aqm for homenet... vs standards track? No field data exists for docsis-pie. Most of the data on pie is from sims. Outside of the docsis standard I know of no deployments of pie and no hardware support for it (please, someone? is there a roadmap from any manufacturer with pie in it?). and conversely, since the fq-codel draft describes what has already been done in linux, deployed in systemd, openwrt, the edgerouter products (as what it is), as part of more than a few other products, (rebranded), inside several major cos, and with at least one well known deployed ISP... ... I regarded fq_codel as experimental 4 years ago. it has survived the test of time with no substantial changes. Certainly I'd like it to be self tuning below 2.5mbits, but pie does badly there also without tuning. ... As for declaring a "proposed standard", it seems as though pie's standardization status itself has not yet been discussed on this list, either. My vote is for docis-pie, pie and fq_codel to have the same status, whatever it winds up being. Informational seemed fine, across the board. I'm all in favor of more deployment experience. > > There are some small editorial nits found by "idnits" that we need to > correct (add a security considerations section, add an IANA > considerations section, and split references section into > normative/informative): > https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie-01.txt > > > I think that is all that needs to be done. > > > > > On 1/22/2016 10:01 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote: >> Hello; the working group last call on the PIE drafts generated some >> emails, but I don't think I've seen any response from the editors. >> Specifically, there were a couple of emails with algorithm description >> questoins and technical comments from Rasool Al-Saadi and Ilpo >> Jarvinen, both with specific points that should be addressed. >> >> For the most part, as I understand the comments, these are things that >> can be relatively simply fixed up or the intent clarified, and not >> catastrophic issues that would prevent the PIE docs from being >> publishable. Please correct me if I misunderstand though. >> >> If the editors can respond and work up a revision that addresses the >> comments to the satisfaction of Rasool and Ilpo, I'd like to keep the >> PIE documents moving forward. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aqm mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > aqm mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
