On 02/05/2016 03:18 AM, 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.
if "the public implementation" refers to Linux kernel module sch_pie,
then it
Wesley Eddy writes:
> 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
On 2/4/16 5:30 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
> On 2/4/2016 8:26 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
>>
>> There is IESG explanation of the distinction here:
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html
>>
>
> Quoting from that, I think this is the criteria that makes it most clear
>
On 2/4/2016 8:22 PM, Dave Täht wrote:
I do not really understand how this criterion promotes docsis-pie from
experimental to informational (or the reverse: demotes fq_codel from
informational to experimental, which happened this morning...
Hi Dave, I'm not ignoring the rest of your message,
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
Dave, here is a longer answer to your specific questions; I hope this
helps calibrate where I'm coming from at least:
On 2/4/2016 8:22 PM, Dave Täht wrote:
I realize now that there was a call as to what status it should be
a while. I figured silence meant there was consensus on
On 2/4/2016 8:26 PM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
There is IESG explanation of the distinction here:
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html
Quoting from that, I think this is the criteria that makes it most clear
Informational is appropriate for DOCSIS-PIE:
"""
1. If it's not