Re: [aqm] status of codel WGLC

[Dave Täht]

On 10/18/16 2:18 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> Jana Iyengar  writes:
> 
>> We'll send out a revised draft early next week.
> 
> Soo... Ping?

Being the co-author of an important RFC has always been on my bucket
list, which actually doesn't have a whole lot left on it.

Ping?

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

Re: [aqm] status of codel WGLC

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Jana Iyengar  writes:

> We'll send out a revised draft early next week.

Soo... Ping?

-Toke

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

Re: [aqm] status of codel WGLC

[Bless, Roland (TM)]

Hi Jana,

Am 29.09.2016 um 18:29 schrieb Jana Iyengar:
> There are two issues in that email:
> 1. The importance of reentering state. This is clearly a matter for
> evaluation, and further evaluation will surely yield more results. We
> cannot and won't be perfect in this draft, but I encourage further
> evaluation and work that can perhaps even lead to a future update to
> this draft. We don't intend to address this point in the draft.

I think that wasn't the issue. The issue was that the text should
actually reflect the importance of reentering dropping state by
giving the explanations from the code snippet also in the text.
It's ok if you then also point out that this needs more experimentation
etc.

> 2. Consistency of drop_next_. We should be consistent, this was an
> oversight. We'll fix the algorithm to be consistent with the text.

Fine!

Regards,
 Roland

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

Re: [aqm] status of codel WGLC

[Jana Iyengar]

That sounds good to me.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Wesley Eddy  wrote:

> In my opinion, point 1 would be a research topic to mention in section 9
> (or other suitable place).  Since we want to encourage wide
> experimentation, it's a good idea to be explicit about what some of the
> open questions/topics are.
>
>
>
> On 9/29/2016 12:29 PM, Jana Iyengar wrote:
>
> Hi Wes, Roland,
>
> There are two issues in that email:
> 1. The importance of reentering state. This is clearly a matter for
> evaluation, and further evaluation will surely yield more results. We
> cannot and won't be perfect in this draft, but I encourage further
> evaluation and work that can perhaps even lead to a future update to this
> draft. We don't intend to address this point in the draft.
> 2. Consistency of drop_next_. We should be consistent, this was an
> oversight. We'll fix the algorithm to be consistent with the text.
>
> We'll send out a revised draft early next week.
> - jana
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Bless, Roland (TM)  > wrote:
>
>> Hi Wes and all,
>>
>> Am 14.09.2016 um 15:26 schrieb Wesley Eddy:
>> > 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.
>>
>> No, still some issues that were raised here:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/ENA1VZmcFVXCJWrMIbmey4wAYnw
>>
>> that are not fixed yet.
>> I pointed that out at the mic within the AQM session @IETF96.
>> Andrew said that they need to do the changes and then resubmit.
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Roland
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [aqm] status of codel WGLC

[Wesley Eddy]

In my opinion, point 1 would be a research topic to mention in section 9 
(or other suitable place).  Since we want to encourage wide 
experimentation, it's a good idea to be explicit about what some of the 
open questions/topics are.




On 9/29/2016 12:29 PM, Jana Iyengar wrote:

Hi Wes, Roland,

There are two issues in that email:
1. The importance of reentering state. This is clearly a matter for 
evaluation, and further evaluation will surely yield more results. We 
cannot and won't be perfect in this draft, but I encourage further 
evaluation and work that can perhaps even lead to a future update to 
this draft. We don't intend to address this point in the draft.
2. Consistency of drop_next_. We should be consistent, this was an 
oversight. We'll fix the algorithm to be consistent with the text.


We'll send out a revised draft early next week.
- jana

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) 
> wrote:


Hi Wes and all,

Am 14.09.2016 um 15:26 schrieb Wesley Eddy:
> 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.

No, still some issues that were raised here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/ENA1VZmcFVXCJWrMIbmey4wAYnw


that are not fixed yet.
I pointed that out at the mic within the AQM session @IETF96.
Andrew said that they need to do the changes and then resubmit.

Regards,
 Roland


___
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

Re: [aqm] status of codel WGLC

[Bless, Roland (TM)]

Hi Wes and all,

Am 14.09.2016 um 15:26 schrieb Wesley Eddy:
> 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.

No, still some issues that were raised here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/ENA1VZmcFVXCJWrMIbmey4wAYnw

that are not fixed yet.
I pointed that out at the mic within the AQM session @IETF96.
Andrew said that they need to do the changes and then resubmit.

Regards,
 Roland


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

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

Re: [aqm] status of codel WGLC

[Wesley Eddy]

The idnits issues link should have been: 
https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-aqm-codel-04.txt


Apologies for the copy-paste error.


On 9/14/2016 9:26 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?


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