On 2/10/2016 3:13 PM, Klatsky, Carl wrote:
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?
If there's thrust to go Standards Track this can be done in a number of
ways, mostly up to the discretion of the Area Directors:
1. done by AQM if it stays open longer-term
2. done by another relevant working group (e.g. TSVWG), if AQM is closed
down
3. done by a re-incarnation of AQM working group (e.g. a PIE or CODEL
working group)
4. done by "AD-sponsoring" of an update
In any case, the ADs need to be supportive of the path.
If for some reason any document needed to be deprecated, this could be
done without the WG, and simply by marking as Obsolete in the RFC Editor
database. This would ideally be accompanied and requested by an RFC
that describes what was found to be wrong, and what the impact is.
So ... in general, I think there's no real limitation imposed on the
options of what can happen in the future. However, things are
definitely easier to do confidently when the working group is open and
active, because consensus is simpler to judge.
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
