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

[Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>]

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

> Dave Cridland <[e-mail]> 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
>