[aqm] status of codel WGLC

Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com> Thu, 04 February 2016 14:44 UTC

Return-Path: <wes@mti-systems.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D0EF1B3090 for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 06:44:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EANegwflfONz for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 06:44:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atl4mhob17.myregisteredsite.com (atl4mhob17.myregisteredsite.com [209.17.115.110]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 570811B3097 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 06:44:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailpod.hostingplatform.com ([10.30.71.206]) by atl4mhob17.myregisteredsite.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u14EiEg6009308 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 09:44:14 -0500
Received: (qmail 7073 invoked by uid 0); 4 Feb 2016 14:44:14 -0000
X-TCPREMOTEIP: 65.189.201.79
X-Authenticated-UID: wes@mti-systems.com
Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.104?) (wes@mti-systems.com@65.189.201.79) by 0 with ESMTPA; 4 Feb 2016 14:44:14 -0000
To: "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Message-ID: <56B363BC.2020705@mti-systems.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 09:44:12 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/2YH4gDRo9_VvdU-RAFSfPbe3jJU>
Subject: [aqm] status of codel WGLC
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/aqm/>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:44:18 -0000

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:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/0NM0D2PtrF08XzTk5M9TLkkybyc

I think based on Dave's responses in that thread, they might be easy to 
address with simple editorial changes, but would like the editors to 
respond or post an update.

Also, the editors should take a quick look at the "idnits" output and 
fix a few errors/warnings (which should be easy):
https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-aqm-codel-02.txt
- need a table of contents
- check the references

I didn't see any feedback about document publication tracks (e.g. 
Standards Track, Informational, Experimental, etc).  We talked to the 
ADs briefly about this, and I think we are comfortable with Experimental 
for this document.  That is the appropriate track if the AQM working 
group thinks this is safe to deploy widely while experimenting with on 
the Internet (which has been happening for quite some time already).  
So, I think version -04 should be labelled with "Intended Status: 
Experimental".

My plan is to complete the shepherd writeup for this document in the 
next couple weeks, and if the editors push the -03 version of the draft, 
I think it will be ready to proceed for AD review.

Please shout if you have further comments.