Subject: [aqm] status of codel WGLC

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:26:09 -0400

Hi, for awhile, the CoDel draft was in working group last call. Some 
comments were received, and the authors made an update some time ago.  
There hasn't been much follow-up discussion.  I assume this means the 
current draft meets people's expectations?  If not, now is a good time 
to shout, because I'm working on the shepherd write-up so that it can be 
submitted to the IESG soon.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-codel/

There are a few small things I noticed while doing the shepherd write-up:

1) I thought the ADs and WG were happy to go Experimental rather than 
Informational 
(https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/current/msg01727.html ) ... 
was there a reason from the authors that it didn't change?

2) Idnits has some minor issues 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/aqm/current/msg01727.html

     a) it doesn't like the reference "[CODEL2012]" in the abstract

     b) for referencing RFC 896, there's inconsistent "RFC896" vs 
"RFC0896" (use the zero or don't, but it should match)

     c) the "[CMNTS]" reference is unused

     d) some of the obsolete references should be checked.

---

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:29:42 -0400

The idnits issues link should have been: 
https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-aqm-codel-04.txt

Apologies for the copy-paste error.

On 9/14/2016 9:26 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
> to shout, because I'm working on the shepherd write-up so that it can 
> be submitted to the IESG soon.
>

---

From: Dave Täht <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:04:29 -0700

> was there a reason from the authors that it didn't change?

Sigh. I've really lost track. This was discussed again on the friday
meeting at the last ietf... and I don't remember what was decided!

My overall suggestion was merely that pie,codel, and fq_codel have the
same status and I don't care which
one it is.

> _______________________________________________
> aqm mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm

---

From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 00:10:03 +0200

Dave Täht <[email-masked]> writes:

> same status and I don't care which one it is.

+1

PIE and FQ-CoDel are marked as experimental, and PIE is already through
the process; so changing the CoDel draft would be the pragmatic thing to
do...

-Toke

---

From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 09:55:50 +0200

Hi Wes and all,

> submitted to the IESG soon.

No, still some issues that were raised here:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/ENA1VZmcFVXCJWrMIbmey4wAYnw

that are not fixed yet.
I pointed that out at the mic within the AQM session @IETF96.
Andrew said that they need to do the changes and then resubmit.

Regards,
 Roland

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:29:49 -0700

Hi Wes, Roland,

There are two issues in that email:
1. The importance of reentering state. This is clearly a matter for
evaluation, and further evaluation will surely yield more results. We
cannot and won't be perfect in this draft, but I encourage further
evaluation and work that can perhaps even lead to a future update to this
draft. We don't intend to address this point in the draft.
2. Consistency of drop_next_. We should be consistent, this was an
oversight. We'll fix the algorithm to be consistent with the text.

We'll send out a revised draft early next week.
- jana

---

From: Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:05:19 -0400

In my opinion, point 1 would be a research topic to mention in section 9 
(or other suitable place).  Since we want to encourage wide 
experimentation, it's a good idea to be explicit about what some of the 
open questions/topics are.

On 9/29/2016 12:29 PM, Jana Iyengar wrote:
> evaluation and work that can perhaps even lead to a future update to 
> this draft. We don't intend to address this point in the draft.
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) 
> <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Wes and all,
>
>     <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/aqm/ENA1VZmcFVXCJWrMIbmey4wAYnw>
>
>     that are not fixed yet.
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm>
>
>

---

From: Jana Iyengar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:02:39 -0700

That sounds good to me.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Wesley Eddy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) <[email-masked]
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Wes and all,
>>

---

From: "Bless, Roland (TM)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 12:56:45 +0200

Hi Jana,

> this draft. We don't intend to address this point in the draft.

I think that wasn't the issue. The issue was that the text should
actually reflect the importance of reentering dropping state by
giving the explanations from the code snippet also in the text.
It's ok if you then also point out that this needs more experimentation
etc.

> oversight. We'll fix the algorithm to be consistent with the text.

Fine!

Regards,
 Roland