On 2/4/2016 9:18 PM, Dave Täht wrote:
Pie itself is proposed as standards track, despite the lack of field data, a 15 page criticism from bob briscoe of the public implementation, and other open issues like that. Personally I've been waiting for an actual modem to test on before bothering to explore more deeply results from pie than we already have. (There is a study starting up soon where I hope to finally A/B the stuff)
Before going to the IESG, we need to make sure there is consensus on that publication track for PIE. As you have seen, I'm trying to address that for each document as all of the technical WGLC comments are addressed and closed out. I think the PIE editors would like Standards Track, if I understand correctly. I do feel like the working group needs to speak up about whether they agree, because as a chair, I haven't heard much feedback about it.
And: I've only recently discovered the pain that "experimental" can cause when other ietf standards are attempted to be layered on top of it (in the nascent babel wg). It didn't sound like informational would cost the same pain. Am I wrong in that assumption?
I'm not familiar with this case, but was on the IESG in the past, and am not aware of Experimental causing any real issues for layering or referencing in other standards. This is simply called out in the IETF Last Call as a downref, recorded in the downref registry, and life goes on. The running code doesn't care how the document is labelled either :)
IMHO, Standards Track carries more weight to say that there are no sharp corners, and the IETF is pretty sure this works well. Experimental is more cautious saying this looks pretty useful, and you should consider trying it out, but it might have some rough edges (e.g. like open research questions, identified in several of the AQM drafts).
Just my 2 cents. _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
