Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> 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 attempt to be slightly less colloquial about it... ;) > > 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 decided that all the algorithms we are describing will be experimental rather than standards track, at least for now. Because they are queueing algorithms and not protocols (and so do not have the same interoperability requirements), this was deemed an acceptable way forward, and a way to get it "out there" without having to have to agree to push for The One True AQM(tm). (This is my understanding; I'm sure someone will chime in and correct me if I'm wrong). Personally, I would have no problem with this being standards track :) -Toke _______________________________________________ aqm mailing list aqm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/aqm
