Subject: [aqm] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-aqm-pie-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 18:10:42 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-aqm-pie-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-pie/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In section 5 and its children: Please keep in mind that "SHOULD" does not
mean quite the same thing as "optional".

It would be nice to see some text about the nature of the "experiment".
That is, why is this experimental? Do you expect to promote this to a
standard in the future? (The shepherd's report speaks of this;  the draft
should, too.)

---

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 17:47:54 +0200

Hi Ben,

just quickly on one point blow.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-pie/

(Will also check this with the authors)

> standard in the future? (The shepherd's report speaks of this;  the draft

Yes, I already recommend based on the feedback from the OPS-DIR review to add 
a section about the nature/goals of the experiment.

AQM will have a recharter discussion at the next meeting which might lead to 
rechartering or closure. If the wg will continue, moving this doc forward 
might be one of their work items. Otherwise there are currently no plans. 
Even though there are implementations of PIE in the wild, the working did not 
have consensus to publish this doc as ST now, as these implementation are 
currently mostly used in home devices and not the Internet itself.

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 11:04:48 -0500

On 19 May 2016, at 10:47, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:

>> Please refer to 
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

Okay.

> Yes, I already recommend based on the feedback from the OPS-DIR review 
> to add a section about the nature/goals of the experiment.
>
> AQM will have a recharter discussion at the next meeting which might 
> lead to rechartering or closure. If the wg will continue, moving this 
> doc forward might be one of their work items. Otherwise there are 
> currently no plans. Even though there are implementations of PIE in 
> the wild, the working did not have consensus to publish this doc as ST 
> now, as these implementation are currently mostly used in home devices 
> and not the Internet itself.

Thanks. I did not mean to ask for specific plans to promote the document 
later; it's a more a matter of whether people think this might happen 
someday, depending on the results of the "experiment" :-)

Ben.

---

From: "Rong Pan (ropan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 00:32:43 +0000

I am not sure how to address the following.

Instead of ³SHOULD², what would be a good alternative word?

Regarding ³experimental², Chair, Mirja, what would be the best way to
address?

Thanks,

Rong

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 19:45:06 -0500

> Instead of ³SHOULD², what would be a good alternative word?

The question is, are the features intended to be truly optional, or 
things people really should implement unless they have a really good 
reason not to?

If the former, then you could change the SHOULDs to MAYs. If the latter, 
then you could describe them as "recommended" features vs "optional" 
features.

> Regarding ³experimental², Chair, Mirja, what would be the best way 

I don't mean to speak for Mirja, but from my own perspective, there is 
language in the shepherd's write up that could be adapted for the 
introduction, or a short separate section.

Thanks,

Ben.

---

From: "Rong Pan (ropan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 21:50:05 +0000

I have specified whether a certain feature is optional or not. If an
implementor indeed decides to implement an option, then they “should”
implement certain things specified in that section. I am afraid “MAY”
would cause the optional feature not being implemented correctly.

Thanks,

Rong

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 16:24:09 -0500

> would cause the optional feature not being implemented correctly.

That's reasonable, but the draft doesn't seem to be worded that way. For 
example, 5.1 starts with, "PIE SHOULD support ECN by marking (rather 
than dropping) ECN capable
packets". That SHOULD is ambiguous as to whether it applies to the fact 
of supporting ECN, or the mechanisms to be used if it is supported. I 
think most people will interpret that to mean both.

Perhaps it should say something like "Implementations MAY support ECN 
marking. If they do so, they SHOULD..."

There are similar "SHOULD" constructs in the other 5.x sections.

>>>> In section 5 and its children: Please keep in mind that "SHOULD" 
>>>> does
>>>> not

---

From: "Rong Pan (ropan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 23:34:56 +0000

Sounds good, will change accordingly…

Rong