Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-codel-03.txt

> On 7 Jul, 2016, at 15:34, Michael Menth wrote: > >> Based on our evaluations, with pure CoDel (without FQ-CoDel), >> "reentering" is actually a common case. I think Dave and Toke should >> have more experimental results to answer this question. (I included >> Dave in

Re: [aqm] status of PIE drafts WGLC

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

Re: [aqm] I-D Action: draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines-09.txt

Wes and all, My comment is in regard to Polina's comment "The WG currently has two AQMs (dropping/marking policy) in last call. Did someone evaluate these AQMs according to the specified guidelines?". As I read over draft-ietf-aqm-eval-guidelines, I did not think the objective of this memo