Dave Cridland <dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)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