Re: [aqm] PIE & CableLabs

Greg White <g.white@CableLabs.com> Fri, 08 November 2013 20:52 UTC

From: Greg White <g.white@CableLabs.com>
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [aqm] PIE & CableLabs
Thread-Index: AQHO3MAAFFH8PuCBIk6ZSa6cse1IYpobvoAA
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 20:52:08 +0000
Message-ID: <CEA2994A.21C54%g.white@cablelabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <7CF25FEB-7D1F-4AAA-92BC-C9DCE87EE029@netapp.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <460FF03C0929234D98F13866FCA93B95@cablelabs.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [aqm] PIE & CableLabs
Precedence: list

Lars,

1) Yes, CableLabs has settled on a formal specification.  It can be found
in Annex M of 
http://www.cablelabs.com/specifications/CM-SP-MULPIv3.1-I01-131029.pdf

2) see above.

3) Probably not directly. We have requested that Cisco update the PIE I-D
to include the updates to the core PIE algorithm made as part of the
CableLabs evaluation. CableLabs will draft an I-D to cover the remaining
gaps between that and what can be found in 1.  I think this achieves what
you are after.  Let me know if not.

-Greg

On 11/8/13, 1:20 PM, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>just as a quick follow-up and maybe clarification to what I said at the
>meeting, could anyone find out:
>
>(1) If the variant of PIE that CableLabs has settled on has a formal
>specification?
>
>(2) If yes, if it is accessible to IETF participants?
>
>(3) If yes, if their copyright, IPR and standardization rules let us work
>with it in the AQM WG like with any other contribution?
>
>And I guess if any of these answers is "no", we'll need to figure out
>what that means for us in the AQM WG going forward.
>
>Lars