Hi Martin, I believe these papers may qualify that requirement:
http://ipv6.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/DOCSIS-AQM_May2014.pdf http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6925768 https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/37381 tl;dr - both pie and codel camps did some independent implementations and testing of the respective other algorithm, with discussions and denting out some poorly described aspects in that process. It's my understanding that this lead to a better quality of the drafts in both instances. Richard Scheffenegger > -----Original Message----- > From: aqm [mailto:aqm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Stiemerling > Sent: Mittwoch, 12. November 2014 13:47 > To: aqm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [aqm] analysis paper on PIE... > > [writing not as AD, but as random IETF participant] > > Sorry for this blunt question: > > Is there any other analysis made by an independent source, i.e., where not > the PIE authors are running an analysis of PIE? > > Thanks, > > Martin > > Am 10.11.14 um 21:15 schrieb Rong Pan (ropan): > > Please see our analysis paper on PIE... > > > > Thanks, > > > > Rong > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
