On Queuing, Marking, and Dropping
RFC 7806

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Alia Atlas) Yes

Comment (2015-10-21 for -03)
No email
send info
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??

(Spencer Dawkins) Yes

Comment (2015-10-20 for -03)
No email
send info
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.

(Martin Stiemerling) Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2016-01-06)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing issues from Gen-ART review.

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection