Re: [tsvwg] taht REVIEW of draft-white-tsvwg-nqb-02

Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net> Thu, 29 August 2019 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F02D1200D6 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bobbriscoe.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5iM8sdO3gvwU for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server.dnsblock1.com (server.dnsblock1.com [85.13.236.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34C3E120089 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 15:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bobbriscoe.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:Cc:References:To:Subject:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=cXKpM1jAxylD7jvhsDuG7VPXI+N/Qcze1jSRImZ6kAE=; b=P8uxdc6p2pZUSaTqzhvhXF8zQ/ ZGFhrftkpUurm3tSOPbnDbb2fi3bcg4sY7MoE/SDRvZUPQ+GhVh9kfQLzKroEVpu17tDSe0jX/8Tc fjOq8vNE0EzscjfJluI2BBBpG+mZ47X67xJeE9s0daNpyVAZjQGoGMNXvs6dt2PQ76V8HBJIeTTdD JZZIZMQWxsvH1FLCxbmPeqM/XBErDhPbA2CoA9wh4dsWpRkCFi0cIuZZp8JE9GIVQUj01flRJ8alI tFBRa4zhQBklW1EnpIMUKiL/KUQ6uiaqP9IMRIlX3JZ7uCJcDqhBrFIH/Q2OWkw9ozfqF5Wl0m2uL MUCH97Sg==;
Received: from [31.185.128.31] (port=33120 helo=[192.168.0.7]) by server.dnsblock1.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>) id 1i3SvS-0003d8-6Q; Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:29:54 +0100
To: Dave Taht <dave@taht.net>
References: <87lfvid3e9.fsf@taht.net>
Cc: tsvwg@ietf.org
From: Bob Briscoe <ietf@bobbriscoe.net>
Message-ID: <528a0903-635f-0f8c-e009-7d3f5a22ed48@bobbriscoe.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 23:29:53 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87lfvid3e9.fsf@taht.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-GB
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server.dnsblock1.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - bobbriscoe.net
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server.dnsblock1.com: authenticated_id: in@bobbriscoe.net
X-Authenticated-Sender: server.dnsblock1.com: in@bobbriscoe.net
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/EakR83K9Zl6aHpABWcoLkrbhr54>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] taht REVIEW of draft-white-tsvwg-nqb-02
X-BeenThere: tsvwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg>, <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 22:29:59 -0000

Dave,

On 24/08/2019 15:49, Dave Taht wrote:
> - The "must employ queue protection" is an attempt to hand-wave away
>    the problem. Does there exist an IETF definition for what "queue
>    protection" actually is?

draft-briscoe-docsis-queue-protection

Strictly not an IETF definition, but at least a DOCSIS definition with 
suitable context and explanation for an IETF audience.


Bob

-- 
________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe                               http://bobbriscoe.net/