Re: [aqm] adoption of draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie-01

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Sat, 28 March 2015 01:02 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: aqm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4F91A1A2E for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -114.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-114.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aVXcwSycUXuI for <aqm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A68821A01F9 for <aqm@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 18:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1301; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1427504534; x=1428714134; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=pG8ZfHQkqSp2MMcpf79yTa+wbxTWRhTA73GEVfzRq4A=; b=Vr/X6ueeq3AZ8vOYDMmpqSsARcOTtzMldBLs19Incmx498weTyLgKgCI 61a3PS3//9uLnfs589pB8kgocB/1A5cnfaacZpNoCtZsIeWv/uSlj/LOw CJ9VfDD0tf0VJ8LJAC+Tfocdb6YlwBJ8oeLbpZsbJyTlaY/sgdTxgxnqF o=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 487
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AIBQCK/BVV/40NJK1cgwaBLMtKAoEyTAEBAQEBAX2EFAEBAQMBeQULCxguVwYTiCcIzQwBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGYsohHgHgxeBFgEEixeDMoN3iAeHBY0sIoQMIDGCQwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,482,1422921600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="407319639"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2015 01:02:13 +0000
Received: from [10.89.12.130] ([10.89.12.130]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t2S12CD8029952 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 28 Mar 2015 01:02:13 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C921D9DC-D6B5-41C9-870C-D6DEB2532D1F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5b6
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <e9e3d9dc0435474283180936c371e0db@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 19:29:17 -0500
Message-Id: <5D71C7BA-56BA-4856-953D-B87D5CDAFB0A@cisco.com>
References: <96cffe6791f54a67ae6b6359de6a3d6e@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com> <e9e3d9dc0435474283180936c371e0db@hioexcmbx05-prd.hq.netapp.com>
To: "Scheffenegger, Richard" <rs@netapp.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/yzOwyexGcFebyPOgKQZnYXQc6UE>
Cc: "aqm-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <aqm-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, Szilveszter Nadas <Szilveszter.Nadas@ericsson.com>, Greg White <g.white@CableLabs.com>, "aqm@ietf.org" <aqm@ietf.org>, Dave Dolson <ddolson@sandvine.com>, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Subject: Re: [aqm] adoption of draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie-01
X-BeenThere: aqm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for active queue management and flow isolation." <aqm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/>
List-Post: <mailto:aqm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>, <mailto:aqm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 01:02:16 -0000

> On Mar 27, 2015, at 4:52 PM, Scheffenegger, Richard <rs@netapp.com> wrote:
> 
> as there haven't been any objections, but some indications of support on the list, and based on the responses in the IETF92 meeting in Dallas, we chairs think this document can be adopted as WG-item at this time.

I agree.