Early Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-23
review-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-23-intdir-early-muite-2024-06-23-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 33) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Internet Area Directorate (intdir) | |
| Deadline | 2024-05-27 | |
| Requested | 2024-05-16 | |
| Requested by | Gorry Fairhurst | |
| Authors | Greg White , Thomas Fossati , Ruediger Geib | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-04-07 (Latest revision 2025-09-16) | |
| Completed reviews |
Intdir Early review of -23
by Benson Muite
(diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -29 by Vijay K. Gurbani (diff) Artart IETF Last Call review of -29 by Robert Sparks (diff) Secdir IETF Last Call review of -29 by Kyle Rose (diff) Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -29 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff) Secdir Telechat review of -30 by Kyle Rose (diff) |
|
| Comments |
This draft is proposed as a PS as a part of the DiffServ series of RFCs. These RFCs concern both router forwarding and endpoint treatments and are maintained by TSVWG. We request review comments from the INTAREA regarding implementation/usage for routers. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Benson Muite |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb by Internet Area Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/int-dir/ExUS6fZRB8stVExT_ACtd7bJiZo | |
| Reviewed revision | 23 (document currently at 33) | |
| Result | On the right track | |
| Completed | 2024-06-23 |
review-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-23-intdir-early-muite-2024-06-23-00
I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for <draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-24.txt>. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details on the INT Directorate, see https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ . Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO OBJECTION. SUMMARY: The draft introduces a differentiated services code point for traffic where latency is important. The primary focus is for applications such as IoT and video conferencing. However, the threshold for low bit rate assumes network connectivity at least as good as provided by 5G mobile networks. Many places in the world still have 4G and even 3G networks. Remote locations may only be served by satellite. Many IoT applications are not latency sensitive, but are low bit rate - for example environment recording applications - but it is probably not good to differentiate these from latency sensitive low bit rate applications such as sending remote terminal input. Many video conferencing applications (for example Meetecho) offer possibilities to turn of video feeds and just have audio and screen sharing. 6G is also being developed and when deployed will likely take time to replace 4G and 5G, so some more thought on thresholds for NQB PHB is needed. SPECIFIC COMMENTS: In section 4.1 500Kb/s is quite high on 4G mobile networks, typically what is used for video conferencing and can saturate end point link bandwidth. Would expect this to also be high for satellite links. For IoT applications and voice probably 50Kb/s is sufficient. Informative reference [SA-5G] is an ETSI document that has several versions, possibly the latest version 18.5.0 is the one being referred to. Should there be references for Cubic and BBR in the introduction, perhaps RFC8312 for Cubic and https://github.com/google/bbr for BBR,as the draft https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cardwell-iccrg-bbr-congestion-control-02 has expired.