On 3/24/2016 9:01 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
Dave Cridland <dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net> writes:
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 :)
I am one of the WG chairs and document shepherd. The AQM charter does
allow for publication on the Standards Track, but at this point in time
there did not seem to be a consensus that this was necessary, plus given
some of the open research questions, it seemed like a prudent choice.
We can always go stronger and make a standard later on.
I think Bob's concerns here, and the disagreement about what happens in
reality, make it very obvious that Experimental is the right choice!
The indications so far are that this has a lot of promise to help, but
there are questions, and it could benefit from even more experience
deploying in the wild, and watching what happens.