Hi Alia,
nearly forgot that I quickly want to come back to you on this one.
Actually there is no one good recommendation to make. This is why the working
ended up standardizing multiple schemes. However, the general guidance given
in RFC 7567 is to deploy at least one of the solution. And ther
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <
> i...@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Alia,
>>
>> thanks for your feedback! Just on your first point regarding the status.
>> The working group felt that there was not enough deploy
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:34 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <
i...@kuehlewind.net> wrote:
> Hi Alia,
>
> thanks for your feedback! Just on your first point regarding the status.
> The working group felt that there was not enough deployment to go directly
> to standards track and given AQM algorithm d
Alia Atlas writes:
> Hi Mirja,
>
> Thanks for the information. I completely agree that it is up to the
> authors, shepherd & WG Chairs as to what
> clarity to add.
There seems to be consensus on moving 5 to 2 and a few nits
worth fixing - but I'm not an author of the codel draft.
> On the stand
Hi Mirja,
Thanks for the information. I completely agree that it is up to the
authors, shepherd & WG Chairs as to what
clarity to add.
On the standards track not being required due to not needing
interoperability with at the same time not enough
deployment, I do think that having a clear stateme
