Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-29
review-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-29-opsdir-lc-fioccola-2025-06-17-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 30)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2025-06-18
Requested 2025-06-07
Requested by Mohamed Boucadair
Authors Greg White , Thomas Fossati , Ruediger Geib
I-D last updated 2025-06-30 (Latest revision 2025-06-30)
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
Assignment Reviewer Giuseppe Fioccola
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/K1387-r5SKLwexfl0JCxTzON0mk
Reviewed revision 29 (document currently at 30)
Result Has nits
Completed 2025-06-17
review-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-29-opsdir-lc-fioccola-2025-06-17-00
This document specifies a Non-Queue-Building Per-Hop Behavior (NQB PHB) in
order to provide a separate queue for application-limited traffic microflows,
allowing to avoid the queuing delays and losses caused by other traffic. This
document has been developed primarily for access network segments and
recommends a specific DSCP to identify NQB microflows. It also updates RFC 8325.

From an OPSDIR point of view, it is good to have Section 4, 6 and 7. Even if
the information is spread among these different sections, they provide guidance
for networks that forward traffic marked with the NQB DSCP and for networks
that do not currently support the NQB PHB.

I think that the document has a clear scope and is almost ready for
publication, but I have a couple of suggestions:

- I think that section 5 on NQB PHB Requirements could be moved before section
4. Also, since section 4.1 explains NQB Sender Requirements, it can be placed
under section 5.

- To improve structure and clarity, you can probably consider to merge section
4 and section 6 since some information is shared such as the configuration
recommendations. A whole section on the Operational and Management aspects as
result of the merge would work better in my opinion.