Re: [aqm] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-pie-07: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 23 May 2016, at 19:32, Rong Pan (ropan) wrote:

> I am not sure how to address the following.
>
> Instead of ³SHOULD², what would be a good alternative word?


The question is, are the features intended to be truly optional, or 
things people really should implement unless they have a really good 
reason not to?

If the former, then you could change the SHOULDs to MAYs. If the latter, 
then you could describe them as "recommended" features vs "optional" 
features.


>
> Regarding ³experimental², Chair, Mirja, what would be the best way 
> to
> address?

I don't mean to speak for Mirja, but from my own perspective, there is 
language in the shepherd's write up that could be adapted for the 
introduction, or a short separate section.

Thanks,

Ben.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Rong
>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> In section 5 and its children: Please keep in mind that "SHOULD" does 
>> not
>> mean quite the same thing as "optional".
>>
>> It would be nice to see some text about the nature of the 
>> "experiment".
>> That is, why is this experimental? Do you expect to promote this to a
>> standard in the future? (The shepherd's report speaks of this;  the 
>> draft
>> should, too.)
>>
>>