Re: [aqm] Last Call: (FlowQueue-Codel) to Experimental RFC

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

Re: [aqm] Last Call: (FlowQueue-Codel) to Experimental RFC

On 3/24/2016 9:01 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: Dave Cridland writes: Well, I have to ask why, in this case, it's Experimental and not Standards-Track? Heh. Well, I guess the short answer is "because there wasn't WG consensus to do that". Basically, the working group

Re: [aqm] Last Call: (FlowQueue-Codel) to Experimental RFC

On 24 March 2016 at 13:01, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Dave Cridland writes: > > > What we meant to say was something along the lines of "You want to > turn > > this on; it'll do you good, so get on with it! You won't regret it! > Now > > go fix

Re: [aqm] Last Call: (FlowQueue-Codel) to Experimental RFC

On 24 Mar 2016 3:02 am, "grenville armitage" wrote: > > > > On 03/18/2016 21:35, Bob Briscoe wrote: >> >> IESG, authors, >> >> 1. Safe? >> >> My main concern is with applicability. In particular, the sentence in section 7 on Deployment Status: "We believe it to be a safe

Re: [aqm] Last Call: (FlowQueue-Codel) to Experimental RFC

Dave Cridland writes: > What we meant to say was something along the lines of "You want to turn > this on; it'll do you good, so get on with it! You won't regret it! Now > go fix the next 100 million devices!". The current formulation in the > draft is an

Re: [aqm] Last Call: (FlowQueue-Codel) to Experimental RFC

Dave Cridland writes: > Actually I'd read that as more of a recommendation than merely safe. I > think by safe, the authors mean that no significant harm has been > found to occur. What we meant to say was something along the lines of "You want to turn this on; it'll do you

Re: [aqm] Last Call: (FlowQueue-Codel) to Experimental RFC

grenville armitage writes: > What about: > > Section 1: "...and we believe it to be safe to turn on by default, ..." -> > "...and we believe it to be significantly beneficial to turn on by default, > ..." > Section 7: "We believe it to be a safe default and ..." -> "We