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.
To be clear also, I think at this stage, the feedback received from the
working group isn't supporting Proposed Standard, and that the next
update should be targeted "Experimental". I can mark it that way in
the datatracker, but can't edit the document header myself, and these
need to be consistent before going to the IESG.
I've heard a couple other people seem to agree with going Experimental
for the CoDel, FQ-CoDel, and PIE drafts and getting all three into the
RFC Editor's hands sooner rather than later. (DOCSIS-PIE will be
Informational.) I've not yet heard folks saying that they really need a
PS now and that PIE should be a PS now.
Definitely shout and correct me here if I'm wrong here, but I think this
is the fastest path forward.
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
