On Queuing, Marking, and Dropping
draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-05
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-04-12
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-03-14
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-02-29
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-01-29
|
05 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2016-01-07
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress |
2016-01-07
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-01-06
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-01-06
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-01-06
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing issues from Gen-ART review. |
2016-01-06
|
05 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2015-11-01
|
05 | Fred Baker | New version available: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-05.txt |
2015-11-01
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2015-11-01
|
04 | Fred Baker | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-11-01
|
04 | Fred Baker | New version available: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-04.txt |
2015-10-22
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-10-22
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Sandra Murphy. |
2015-10-22
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot discuss] FWIW, I think that the algorithm/queue empty and WRR issues from Pete Resnick's Gen-ART review need a fix. |
2015-10-22
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] I also agree with Pete on RFC/author name reference issue. (And generally, getting an ack from the authors that they've seen a Gen-ART … [Ballot comment] I also agree with Pete on RFC/author name reference issue. (And generally, getting an ack from the authors that they've seen a Gen-ART review or other last call comment helps the rest of us to manage the process - whether or not those comments need to be taken into account.) |
2015-10-22
|
03 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-10-22
|
03 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-10-21
|
03 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-10-21
|
03 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot comment] Thank you for a clear and well-written draft. I would like to understand the reference of "Weighted Fair Queues" and have that clarified … [Ballot comment] Thank you for a clear and well-written draft. I would like to understand the reference of "Weighted Fair Queues" and have that clarified in the draft. It's a technical concern, but I have confidence that the authors and ADs will address it. 1) Sec 2.2.3 refers to "Weighted Fair Queues" as well as "Calendar Queues". Perhaps it is due to a lack in my recent background - but what's described is nothing like Weighted Fair Queuing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_fair_queueing). Do you have a reference for "Weighted Fair Queues" or something else in mind?? |
2015-10-21
|
03 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-10-21
|
03 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-10-21
|
03 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-10-21
|
03 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-10-21
|
03 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-10-20
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] In this text: Carrying the matter further, a queuing algorithm may also be termed "Work Conserving" or "Non Work Conserving". A … [Ballot comment] In this text: Carrying the matter further, a queuing algorithm may also be termed "Work Conserving" or "Non Work Conserving". A "work conserving" algorithm, by definition, is either empty, in which case no attempt is being made to dequeue data from it, or contains something, in which case it continuously tries to empty the queue. did you mean that an *algorithm* is empty or contains something? I don't understand. A work conserving queue, sure. |
2015-10-20
|
03 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-10-20
|
03 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-10-20
|
03 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-10-20
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2015-10-20
|
03 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-10-19
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2015-10-19
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot has been issued |
2015-10-19
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-10-19
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-10-19
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-10-19
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-10-19
|
03 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-10-15
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
2015-10-15
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
2015-10-15
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-10-14
|
03 | (System) | Notify list changed from "Richard Scheffenegger" , "Wesley Eddy" to (None) |
2015-10-12
|
02 | Fred Baker | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2015-10-12
|
03 | Fred Baker | New version available: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-03.txt |
2015-10-12
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Jürgen Schönwälder. |
2015-10-09
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2015-10-09
|
02 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Jürgen Schönwälder |
2015-10-08
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
2015-10-08
|
02 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy |
2015-10-06
|
02 | Pete Resnick | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Pete Resnick. |
2015-10-05
|
02 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-10-05
|
02 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-02, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. |
2015-10-01
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
2015-10-01
|
02 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Pete Resnick |
2015-10-01
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-10-01
|
02 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (On Queuing, Marking, and Dropping) … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (On Queuing, Marking, and Dropping) to Informational RFC The IESG has received a request from the Active Queue Management and Packet Scheduling WG (aqm) to consider the following document: - 'On Queuing, Marking, and Dropping' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-10-15. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This note discusses implementation strategies for coupled queuing and mark/drop algorithms. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2015-10-01
|
02 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-10-01
|
02 | Martin Stiemerling | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-10-22 |
2015-10-01
|
02 | Martin Stiemerling | Last call was requested |
2015-10-01
|
02 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-10-01
|
02 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-10-01
|
02 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-10-01
|
02 | Martin Stiemerling | Notification list changed to "Richard Scheffenegger" <rs.ietf@gmx.at>, "Wesley Eddy" <wes@mti-systems.com> from "Richard Scheffenegger" <rs@netapp.com>, "Wesley Eddy" <wes@mti-systems.com> |
2015-10-01
|
02 | Martin Stiemerling | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-08-16
|
02 | Martin Stiemerling | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-08-10
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. This document discusses generic issues when combining an AQM mechanism with a Scheduling mechanism in combination. This is intended to help implementers conceptualize the interactions, but does not account as a formal protocol. The intended status is properly reflected in the title page. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This note discusses implementation strategies for coupled queuing and mark/drop algorithms. In the discussion of Active Queue Management, there has been discussion of the coupling of queue management (scheduling) algorithms with mark/drop (aqm) algorithms. This note is Informational, intended to describe reasonable possibilities without constraining outcomes. This is not so much about "right" or "wrong" as it is "what might be reasonable", and discusses several possible implementation strategies. Also, while queuing might be implemented in almost any layer, specifically the document addresses queues that might be used in the Differentiated Services Architecture, and are therefore at or below the IP layer. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? This document emerged to capture some of the discussions within the WG around the combination of scheduling and AQM mechanisms, and to clarify the discussion, as well as providing some guidance as to how to implement such a combination. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? The WG is actively looking at specific combined algorithms (e.g. FQ-Codel), which have been widely recognized as being more effective than either algorithm alone. There exists deployed code, as well as simulation code for this particular combination, but many other combinations, as described in the document, of different scheduling and queue management algorithms are possible. Personnel Document Shepherd - Wesley Eddy Responsible Area Director - Martin Stiemerling (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document is mostly descriptive; some minor nits regarding language (simplification and disambiguation for non-native speakers) have been raised. Thorough technical review was performed, while the content captures the spirit of discussions within the group as to the merit of combining the different classes of algorithms. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The document leans heavy on the Differentiated Services Architecture language. There is good overlap of the TSVWG responsible for that and the AQM group. Reviews by RTG - in particular additional implementers - is suggested. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. To the best of the shepherds knowledge, yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The entire WG has participated in the discussion, and the document has widespread consensus. No concerns were raised that have not been addressed. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. There are no normative downrefs. There are informational references to other WG documents that are not yet last called. If the RFC Editor prefers, the document may be kept by the RFC Editor before publishing until these documents are ready, but we do not have any requirement for this. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review necessary. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No status change of existing RFCs. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). No IANA considerations. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No formal sections within document. |
2015-08-10
|
02 | Richard Scheffenegger | Notification list changed to "Richard Scheffenegger" <rs@netapp.com>, "Wesley Eddy" <wes@mti-systems.com> from "Richard Scheffenegger" <rs@netapp.com> |
2015-08-10
|
02 | Richard Scheffenegger | Document shepherd changed to Wesley Eddy |
2015-08-10
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Informational. This document discusses generic issues when combining an AQM mechanism with a Scheduling mechanism in combination. This is intended to help implementers conceptualize the interactions, but does not account as a formal protocol. The intended status is properly reflected in the title page. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This note discusses implementation strategies for coupled queuing and mark/drop algorithms. In the discussion of Active Queue Management, there has been discussion of the coupling of queue management (scheduling) algorithms with mark/drop (aqm) algorithms. This note is Informational, intended to describe reasonable possibilities without constraining outcomes. This is not so much about "right" or "wrong" as it is "what might be reasonable", and discusses several possible implementation strategies. Also, while queuing might be implemented in almost any layer, specifically the document addresses queues that might be used in the Differentiated Services Architecture, and are therefore at or below the IP layer. Working Group Summary Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? This document emerged to capture some of the discussions within the WG around the combination of scheduling and AQM mechanisms, and to clarify the discussion, as well as providing some guidance as to how to implement such a combination. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted? The WG is actively looking at specific combined algorithms (e.g. FQ-Codel), which have been widely recognized as being more effective than either algorithm alone. There exists deployed code, as well as simulation code for this particular combination, but many other combinations, as described in the document, of different scheduling and queue management algorithms are possible. Personnel Document Shepherd - Richard Scheffenegger Responsible Area Director - Martin Stiemerling (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document is mostly descriptive; some minor nits regarding language (simplification and disambiguation for non-native speakers) have been raised. Thorough technical review was performed, while the content captures the spirit of discussions within the group as to the merit of combining the different classes of algorithms. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The document leans heavy on the Differentiated Services Architecture language. There is good overlap of the TSVWG responsible for that and the AQM group. Reviews by RTG - in particular additional implementers - is suggested. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. To the best of the shepherds knowledge, yes. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The entire WG has participated in the discussion, and the document has widespread consensus. No concerns were raised that have not been addressed. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. There are no normative downrefs. There are informational references to other WG documents that are not yet last called. If the RFC Editor prefers, the document may be kept by the RFC Editor before publishing until these documents are ready, but we do not have any requirement for this. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review necessary. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No status change of existing RFCs. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). No IANA considerations. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. No formal sections within document. |
2015-08-10
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | Responsible AD changed to Martin Stiemerling |
2015-08-10
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from In WG Last Call |
2015-08-10
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-08-10
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-08-10
|
02 | Wesley Eddy | Changed document writeup |
2015-05-01
|
02 | Fred Baker | New version available: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-02.txt |
2015-03-31
|
01 | Richard Scheffenegger | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2015-03-31
|
01 | Richard Scheffenegger | Intended Status changed to Informational from None |
2015-03-31
|
01 | Richard Scheffenegger | Changed document writeup |
2015-03-31
|
01 | Richard Scheffenegger | Notification list changed to "Richard Scheffenegger" <rs@netapp.com> |
2015-03-31
|
01 | Richard Scheffenegger | Document shepherd changed to Richard Scheffenegger |
2015-03-23
|
01 | Fred Baker | New version available: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-01.txt |
2014-09-18
|
00 | Wesley Eddy | This document now replaces draft-baker-aqm-sfq-implementation instead of None |
2014-09-18
|
00 | Fred Baker | New version available: draft-ietf-aqm-fq-implementation-00.txt |