Re: [aqm] status of PIE drafts WGLC

Thanks Wes. I should be able to get those taken care of in the next week or so. -Greg On 2/4/16, 11:33 AM, "aqm on behalf of Wesley Eddy" wrote: >Since none of the questions outstanding from WGLC seem to impact the >DOCSIS PIE draft

Re: [aqm] Experimental vs informational vs standards track

On 2/4/16 5:30 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote: > On 2/4/2016 8:26 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote: >> >> There is IESG explanation of the distinction here: >> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html >> > > Quoting from that, I think this is the criteria that makes it most clear >

Re: [aqm] Experimental vs informational vs standards track

On 2/4/2016 8:22 PM, Dave Täht wrote: I do not really understand how this criterion promotes docsis-pie from experimental to informational (or the reverse: demotes fq_codel from informational to experimental, which happened this morning... Hi Dave, I'm not ignoring the rest of your message,

Re: [aqm] Experimental vs informational vs standards track

On 2/4/2016 9:18 PM, Dave Täht wrote: Pie itself is proposed as standards track, despite the lack of field data, a 15 page criticism from bob briscoe of the public implementation, and other open issues like that. Personally I've been waiting for an actual modem to test on before bothering to

Re: [aqm] Experimental vs informational vs standards track

Dave, here is a longer answer to your specific questions; I hope this helps calibrate where I'm coming from at least: On 2/4/2016 8:22 PM, Dave Täht wrote: I realize now that there was a call as to what status it should be a while. I figured silence meant there was consensus on

Re: [aqm] Experimental vs informational vs standards track

On 2/4/2016 8:26 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote: There is IESG explanation of the distinction here: https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html Quoting from that, I think this is the criteria that makes it most clear Informational is appropriate for DOCSIS-PIE: """ 1. If it's not

[aqm] status of WGLC on fq-codel

Hello, we started a working group last call for comments on this draft in December: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel/ (this is the -03 version currently) Some comments were received since then, and Toke updated the document:

[aqm] status of codel WGLC

Hi, in December, we started a working group last call on: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-codel/ (the -02 version of the document) A couple of small comments that I've seen since then, but don't think were addressed are in:

Re: [aqm] status of PIE drafts WGLC

Since none of the questions outstanding from WGLC seem to impact the DOCSIS PIE draft directly, I think that it is ready to move forward: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie/ Since it's describing what has already been done in DOCSIS, the Informational status seems