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

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <> Thu, 24 March 2016 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46A5B12DBC4; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:13:28 -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 aH3soCwh6Vd9; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:13:26 -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 279AA12DBBF; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=201310; t=1458828321; bh=XKKZG1CZ3kmj+N+md2VshrgCJP3yZQGzaNwjORoj2io=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=MIFS1zyjGHh54K/UPIVCcxaMT1P/3SvtIwSssE4hmFLrfD9hINf+4KjkfMvw2R0uI RgKuxPlaMtroSBr97gHjajPZAeLotiVS8Rg9T7fGcHU5bmb5Tvx+/4KHRsTzAk7Zxz AgYJSyb5U38pc7X6/kb7r0L527GgFiXuZVk4LIZ4=
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AA098C40251; Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:05:20 +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 15:05:20 +0100
In-Reply-To: <> (Dave Cridland's message of "Thu, 24 Mar 2016 13:44:34 +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 14:13:28 -0000

Dave Cridland <> writes:

> 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.

Yes, well, ensuring that it does is what the WG last call and review
process is for, isn't it? Which the draft has been through without
anyone taking issue with it. Not even sure what (if any) the proper
process for handling this is at this time (the tracker lists the status
as "Submitted to IESG for Publication")...?

I explained the reasoning behind the current language in a previous
email. The only proposal for alternative language has been from
Grenville, and as I said I can live with that. However, I'm not terribly
inclined to spend more time editing this until I'm sure that it will
actually put the issue to rest.