Re: [aqm] adoption call: algorithm drafts

[Michael Welzl <[e-mail]>]

On 18. sep. 2014, at 13:50, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:

> Dave Taht <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
>> I agree it relies heavily on the codel draft to keep the distinction
>> between flow queuing and aqm distinct. If it were to include codel (or
>> vice versa), the draft would get rather long.
> 
> IMO it would be quite possible to make the description AQM-agnostic; and
> I do believe the scheduling mechanism has value in itself. I'll be happy
> to present some data on this at the Honolulu meeting if there's interest
> in it.
> 
> Perhaps a way forward would be to make the main description of the
> scheduling mechanism AQM-agnostic, and then have a section describing
> interactions with specific AQMs. This would just include CoDel right
> now, of course, but would make it possible to, for instance, add in an
> fq_pie at a later date...
> 
>>> We would like feedback right now on adopting:
>>> 1 - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pan-aqm-pie-01> and
>>> 2 - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nichols-tsvwg-codel-02>
>>> towards the charter milestone for submitting algorithm
>>> specifications to the IESG.  Whether they are Proposed Standard
>>> or Experimental can be debated now or later, but we want to
>>> probe if there's critical mass to adopt them first.
>> 
>> +1 on both.
> 
> +1.

+1

Michael