Re: [aqm] status of codel WGLC

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Dave Täht  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

Re: [aqm] status of codel WGLC

[Dave Täht]

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

[aqm] "BBR" TCP patches submitted to the linux kernel

[Dave Täht]

I'm really looking forward to trying them out and reading the upcoming
paper.

https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/671069/

___
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm