Re: [aqm] status of codel WGLC

[Wesley Eddy <[e-mail]>]

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.
>