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.
+1 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 do... -Toke _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
