Wes, If the 'algorithm' drafts (CoDel, FQ-CoDel, and PIE) are targeted as Experimental, does that mean at some time later their status moves onto either PS (if real-world testing & use pans out) or Informational (if no activity further proves it out but the authors want to keep the info out there for the community)? If so, how does that occur of the WG closes down?
Regards, Carl Klatsky Comcast 215-286-8256 -----Original Message----- From: aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wesley Eddy Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 2:27 PM To: aqm@ietf.org Subject: Re: [aqm] status of PIE drafts WGLC 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 _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
