On 9/14/16 6:26 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
> Hi, for awhile, the CoDel draft was in working group last call. Some
> comments were received, and the authors made an update some time ago. 
> There hasn't been much follow-up discussion.  I assume this means the
> current draft meets people's expectations?  If not, now is a good time
> to shout, because I'm working on the shepherd write-up so that it can be
> submitted to the IESG soon.
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-codel/
> 
> There are a few small things I noticed while doing the shepherd write-up:
> 
> 1) I thought the ADs and WG were happy to go Experimental rather than
> Informational
> (https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/current/msg01727.html ) ...
> was there a reason from the authors that it didn't change?

Sigh. I've really lost track. This was discussed again on the friday
meeting at the last ietf... and I don't remember what was decided!

My overall suggestion was merely that pie,codel, and fq_codel have the
same status and I don't care which
one it is.

> 
> 2) Idnits has some minor issues
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/current/msg01727.html
> 
>     a) it doesn't like the reference "[CODEL2012]" in the abstract
> 
>     b) for referencing RFC 896, there's inconsistent "RFC896" vs
> "RFC0896" (use the zero or don't, but it should match)
> 
>     c) the "[CMNTS]" reference is unused
> 
>     d) some of the obsolete references should be checked.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to