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

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <> Thu, 24 March 2016 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81E712DB1F; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 06:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id foC6m0IkfcMB; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 06:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35CE412D0C6; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 06:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=201310; t=1458824499; bh=zbxffKoZVnPtyQtwuMczkAEgs7LTXfUzXci6KwSEeUo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=AybdU6VygUrlydfNEEAbWk/UnYzfp9ObMopsF0EV76TlcCXM0Uo96+htq79r+BUqm r2WfbAJTWTen0ou033Zj/aRBnLYguV+i/6NmZFuqHSEl/BnRgX4eq3Uoa6+Vl5clTf c4Cn9ZzbaDY6GzJ8vdHpVGDFrCif7IWkTeHeFyZ8=
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 07B32C40251; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:01:39 +0100 (CET)
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <>
To: Dave Cridland <>
Subject: Re: [aqm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-aqm-fq-codel-05.txt> (FlowQueue-Codel) to Experimental RFC
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:01:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: <> (Dave Cridland's message of "Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:56:15 +0000")
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:05:48 -0700
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 13:02:22 -0000

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).

(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 :)