[tsvwg] some old abbreviations

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Sat, 29 February 2020 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
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 956753A099E for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:27:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 hFqWSZ7LHohf for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:27:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3C5E3A099B for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 18:27:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.6] (unknown [119.94.165.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED56A364796; Sat, 29 Feb 2020 03:27:40 +0100 (CET)
To: tsvwg@ietf.org
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Cc: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <8335e463-1947-3902-db8f-b8c4f145e72d@pi.nu>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 10:27:35 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Quyvw8gz_HxSbsufbE4pmgP9qJA>
Subject: [tsvwg] some old abbreviations
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: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 02:27:49 -0000

Folks,

I'm not subscribed to this list, but have a small favor to ask.

I'm working on an update of RFC 3272, the document we are working on
have a paragraph in section

"The schemes described in the short time scale (e.g., RED and its
variations, > ECN, LQD, and RND)."

RED is Random Early Detection
ECN is Explicit Congestion Notification

Magnus helped me find Loss and Quieng Delay control (LQD).

I have not been able to find RND, anyone that can help?


The latest version of the document we are working on is:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dt-teas-rfc3272bis-07

I plan to re-write part of the congestion text.

/Loa


-- 


Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64