Re: [Spud] New Version Notification for draft-hildebrand-spud-prototype-02.txt

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> >One tube ID linkage that would need to be exposed to the path is "prefer
> to drop packets in this tube before packets in tube ID x" or "prefer to
> forward packets in tube ID x before packets in this tube", which gives you
> a nice simple vocabulary for expressing almost everything you need to for
> differential QoS from a given source without allowing global marking with
> all its attendant mark inflation problems.
>
> ​Yes, that's quite similar to the "ordinal priority" requirement that we
discussed in relation to WebRTC where you may want to indication which of a
related set of flows should have priority based on application semantics).


That's a different kind of relationship than I was considering.  I think
> that would Dan Wing and Pal Martinsen the tools they need for media QoS.
>
> >Of course, since everything along the path and everything cooperating
> with everything along the path knows the tube id, any tube linkage features
> probably have implications for spoofing we'll need to be careful about.
>
> There would have to be some sort of proof that the flows are from the
> "same" endpoint; maybe the open packets would include something signed by
> the same private key, for instance.
>

​Are you thinking a TOFU-like trust?  I can demonstrate that flow N and
flow N+1 are from the same source, even though I cannot tell you anything
about the source that emitted them?

Ted​