Subject: [aqm] status of codel WGLC

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 09:44:12 -0500

Hi, in December, we started a working group last call on:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-codel/
(the -02 version of the document)

A couple of small comments that I've seen since then, but don't think 
were addressed are in:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/0NM0D2PtrF08XzTk5M9TLkkybyc

I think based on Dave's responses in that thread, they might be easy to 
address with simple editorial changes, but would like the editors to 
respond or post an update.

Also, the editors should take a quick look at the "idnits" output and 
fix a few errors/warnings (which should be easy):
https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-aqm-codel-02.txt
- need a table of contents
- check the references

I didn't see any feedback about document publication tracks (e.g. 
Standards Track, Informational, Experimental, etc).  We talked to the 
ADs briefly about this, and I think we are comfortable with Experimental 
for this document.  That is the appropriate track if the AQM working 
group thinks this is safe to deploy widely while experimenting with on 
the Internet (which has been happening for quite some time already).  
So, I think version -04 should be labelled with "Intended Status: 
Experimental".

My plan is to complete the shepherd writeup for this document in the 
next couple weeks, and if the editors push the -03 version of the draft, 
I think it will be ready to proceed for AD review.

Please shout if you have further comments.

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 09:22:38 -0800

Thanks Wes. We'll work on getting -03 out shortly.

- jana

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> A couple of small comments that I've seen since then, but don't think were
> addressed are in:
> Also, the editors should take a quick look at the "idnits" output and fix
> a few errors/warnings (which should be easy):
>
> Standards Track, Informational, Experimental, etc).  We talked to the ADs
> briefly about this, and I think we are comfortable with Experimental for
> this document.  That is the appropriate track if the AQM working group
> thinks this is safe to deploy widely while experimenting with on the
> Internet (which has been happening for quite some time already).  So, I
> think version -04 should be labelled with "Intended Status: Experimental".
>
> My plan is to complete the shepherd writeup for this document in the next
> couple weeks, and if the editors push the -03 version of the draft, I think
> it will be ready to proceed for AD review.
>
> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
>