Re: [aqm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05.txt> (FlowQueue-Codel) to Experimental RFC

Dave Cridland <> Thu, 24 March 2016 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DEB812DB1E for <>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 06:45:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gqJe16SL47A6 for <>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 06:45:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A02212DADE for <>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 06:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l68so236964164wml.0 for <>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 06:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=8ar7LHgfUsO+QwSbGKKuouRLIpaENDlJ+AElwJFeclI=; b=BZ8IAhbEMsFLpsnHZYTWJXNION6XXOupbpTNsRtGofsrC9i5c2+OH/2ro6MDBGG28Y gvVexvepGn0mIYrOuu4WuHtE7Y+LUAXiBHuXX3chObtrivnXFymFp1MMooamdi9aMuAY vlNFppMfSNLq7oUoyNJnx+uacrwyz6xKik6JA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=8ar7LHgfUsO+QwSbGKKuouRLIpaENDlJ+AElwJFeclI=; b=OPzcHTwZtuasJMjf/OGC3iezen45oslTJCceOsXXDlV2eR8vIRmBK8Zx7xot18oj+4 zWXVB+XfvezAYZQHZsV9lPZ5OwWtUfqFxGElFxB7QWsZ1JzfDNSqLQ7cQ2g9h8PzQvd+ MIevKcezR3v44Se4PQVqW8k5bAPSbqvAApKqVrtFGp3GKf/0CoAA5cgh3RunzdImG5/Q epYuftRrqBBzKBuLTlxfFGd98lIlmf319rA4DxXkenFNAnlaAy+13GRlwUrGex5Izaib 8hBUJyNhd4zabcVD7A2YNwbDYQF5VzUTKdrwKQmE98+66hrQZpLcuI+eTPUEdm/d0lnk wjkQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLLHwl5WCjNnYv1bhcM1eYeRzGW2D3YXhZSe8zKzKg/ISOKo+EhVs6tUx+Ds+JbnLKobb1+QohaSGPi6xyL
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id m15mr31984142wmb.60.1458827074754; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 06:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 06:44:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:44:34 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05.txt> (FlowQueue-Codel) to Experimental RFC
From: Dave Cridland <>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1144294c9475e1052ecba55a"
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, Bob Briscoe <>, grenville armitage <>,,,, " Discussion" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:45:07 -0000

On 24 March 2016 at 13:01, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <> wrote:

> Dave Cridland <> writes:
> >     What we meant to say was something along the lines of "You want to
> turn
> >     this on; it'll do you good, so get on with it! You won't regret it!
> Now
> >     go fix the next 100 million devices!". The current formulation in the
> >     draft is an attempt to be slightly less colloquial about it... ;)
> >
> > Well, I have to ask why, in this case, it's Experimental and not
> > Standards-Track?
> Heh. Well, I guess the short answer is "because there wasn't WG
> consensus to do that". Basically, the working group decided that all the
> algorithms we are describing will be experimental rather than standards
> track, at least for now. Because they are queueing algorithms and not
> protocols (and so do not have the same interoperability requirements),
> this was deemed an acceptable way forward, and a way to get it "out
> there" without having to have to agree to push for The One True AQM(tm).
If this isn't standards track because there's no WG consensus for a single
algorithm (and we'll argue over whether a queueing algorithm is a protocol
or not some other time), then I think this WG document should reflect that
consensus and hold back on the recommendations, then, unless you really
have WG consensus for that position.

If this were an individual submission, it'd be different, but a WG document
must reflect the Working Group as a whole and not just the authors.

Of course, this isn't even my biscuit to dunk, let alone my hill to die on.

> (This is my understanding; I'm sure someone will chime in and correct me
> if I'm wrong).
> Personally, I would have no problem with this being standards track :)
> -Toke