Since none of the questions outstanding from WGLC seem to impact the
DOCSIS PIE draft directly, I think that it is ready to move forward:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie/
Since it's describing what has already been done in DOCSIS, the
Informational status seems appropriate, and consistent with other
similar RFCs, so I think we're good there.
There are some small editorial nits found by "idnits" that we need to
correct (add a security considerations section, add an IANA
considerations section, and split references section into
normative/informative):
https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-aqm-docsis-pie-01.txt
I think that is all that needs to be done.
On 1/22/2016 10:01 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
Hello; the working group last call on the PIE drafts generated some
emails, but I don't think I've seen any response from the editors.
Specifically, there were a couple of emails with algorithm description
questoins and technical comments from Rasool Al-Saadi and Ilpo
Jarvinen, both with specific points that should be addressed.
For the most part, as I understand the comments, these are things that
can be relatively simply fixed up or the intent clarified, and not
catastrophic issues that would prevent the PIE docs from being
publishable. Please correct me if I misunderstand though.
If the editors can respond and work up a revision that addresses the
comments to the satisfaction of Rasool and Ilpo, I'd like to keep the
PIE documents moving forward.
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
_______________________________________________
aqm mailing list
aqm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
