Dave Täht <d...@taht.net> writes:

> 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.


PIE and FQ-CoDel are marked as experimental, and PIE is already through
the process; so changing the CoDel draft would be the pragmatic thing to


aqm mailing list

Reply via email to