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

Dave Cridland <> Thu, 24 March 2016 10:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08BB12D599 for <>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:56:20 -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 3x5qx8VKzNb5 for <>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:56:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E92612D6D9 for <>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l68so60082569wml.1 for <>; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:56:17 -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=YSo8ef/1SER4NlWmBvaNVM46YYOkwBRzctYxAN4DpwQ=; b=dy1DxdT2mLjNg7Jw2ME9xMLjRXJ2QRjRw5gyY001MLugBrRPcWkpTsmJVrKh3h+S3T F6B/1h5cAv26gGp7nuqI6bmKvEXYXEPqHE2BCrcaW4d+rdyPZClomVY9ZtEI0T3bXwFT rAtS1ULGzgGbDDgdiGWgFCz69FZGoUGW7uq9w=
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=YSo8ef/1SER4NlWmBvaNVM46YYOkwBRzctYxAN4DpwQ=; b=EUmgVhA6A22TQoR/qMle6YZsmWX6w/Lj3ujcy2dp6aZ7KdksbBytCd45IV3X6LJc9C yxOqdm/MTKgFaJW8D5ccVWzcfXR/NfN+cyrhXHEpQ1P2RMSjRLP9e6NacExDbIko0TPh zsxmhFXvRlF6Fj56Zk5OxyY/ianr/J3aAgAm12BanIC5+ENhK05hEJIuz9XwFdVofhhI UIDBvupjUPvRhuGQXLDcS5JsTFEIjK1A6d0egqp3NxCoHFeGvSaiN+wPdjiwhBy4sb5Y 2PY2mqNO6RRI8q/IaoITuV/bvVjjwFeVINsgF396UVm3U/Jgj8Uyy2xZTbBeLwG+ricP q28Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKtX5XMslEnbi5ny6IqpdfDhsjvxH7vcIyoa2OOvncG7MmEG6yG6BZNd+L9KiibnlEnoTD9hI7HjcZyqcp6
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id a66mr31198212wmh.57.1458816975888; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:56:15 +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="001a114b1584a40306052ec94bb3"
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 10:56:21 -0000

On 24 March 2016 at 10:32, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <> wrote:

> Dave Cridland <> writes:
> > Actually I'd read that as more of a recommendation than merely safe. I
> > think by safe, the authors mean that no significant harm has been
> > found to occur.
> 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

Please try to explain as if I haven't read your draft and wouldn't
understand it if I did, but you seem to be saying this is an applicability
statement indicating you want wide deployment, but, from RFC 2026:

   (d)  Limited Use:  The TS is considered to be appropriate for use
      only in limited or unique circumstances.  For example, the usage
      of a protocol with the "Experimental" designation should generally
      be limited to those actively involved with the experiment.

If what you're saying is that you do believe this is "ready" for wide
deployment, you should be publishing on the Standards Track, surely?