Re: [aqm] status of codel WGLC

Hi Wes, Roland,

There are two issues in that email:
1. The importance of reentering state. This is clearly a matter for
evaluation, and further evaluation will surely yield more results. We
cannot and won't be perfect in this draft, but I encourage further
evaluation and work that can perhaps even lead to a future update to this
draft. We don't intend to address this point in the draft.
2. Consistency of drop_next_. We should be consistent, this was an
oversight. We'll fix the algorithm to be consistent with the text.

We'll send out a revised draft early next week.
- jana

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) <roland.bless@kit.edu>
wrote:

> Hi Wes and all,
>
> Am 14.09.2016 um 15:26 schrieb Wesley Eddy:
> > 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.
>
> No, still some issues that were raised here:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/ENA1VZmcFVXCJWrMIbmey4wAYnw
>
> that are not fixed yet.
> I pointed that out at the mic within the AQM session @IETF96.
> Andrew said that they need to do the changes and then resubmit.
>
> Regards,
>  Roland
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> aqm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>