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 > Informational is appropriate for DOCSIS-PIE: > """ > > 1. If it's not going to be changed no matter what the result is, it's > Informational. This is typically the case with vendor protocols; the > vendor will publish it for the good of the community, but retains > full change control, and gives no promises about listening to > community feedback. Case in point: "Microsoft Point-To-Point > Encryption (MPPE) Protocol" (RFC 3078). > > """ > > It's simply what was done elsewhere, and not going to be changed. Greg > was kind enough to write it up, and it's useful information for the > community, so the WG had decided to put it forward as Informational. > > Does that make sense?
Sure. I'm OK with informational status for docsis-pie. But: It is roughly the same box that the Linux community would put fq_codel in (at this point), if you consider them a "vendor". Informational was the status of the draft for the past several years, til it changed this morning. Can you address the rest of my message? (notably: what effect does the status of the document have on other standards that might rely on it?). We've not discussed "Standards track" for fq_codel. By what criteria would it qualify or not? I figured it was mostly blocked on an implementation from the draft. 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) 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? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
