[tsvwg] TSVWG: WG adoption of draft-white-tsvwg-nqb!

"Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com> Fri, 30 August 2019 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <David.Black@dell.com>
X-Original-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB416120AC0 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dell.com header.b=kAz2y0Cr; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=emc.com header.b=sKMBHPib
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OWIbmm6-UoFI for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:41:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00154904.pphosted.com (mx0a-00154904.pphosted.com []) (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 0B0BD1208A5 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 08:41:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0170391.ppops.net []) by mx0a-00154904.pphosted.com ( with SMTP id x7UFUf5D030331 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:41:25 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dell.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : content-type : mime-version; s=smtpout1; bh=In7SCx5xaOUQa5IcSn8hZlQNqeJIuEco7EvpqcjRpv4=; b=kAz2y0CrZG/BGs9AoLHZ+3JTs2WGTfl+7Ml5Pt7JpKWoWaWcTKTqhfQ+nTzTS7bIXCQ3 q/rIaZ2HMdLEhppA2HdFXLn0Ub5EyQek7fASE0qmsB11nSPlXV6tHPM0K8rAxHoMq0fd BId5fVKSx5zMrcLo5frN9i2RHTPRSbOf+hSqNXy9HR+m8vH2Z8NThvgsBu0JvDeW1NHi DETVkdW8cHP26E51R8PF2fFurl7USkLtabuxuDWzN/sY0F4e5pnBu8ri1HigzIrh62tt FXuemivMaQjobRvGvdhHAiiMEbKql+p2MdXcd+rzIltlP3xuEDktpD8AcKLrq1ZpxgLw FA==
Received: from mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com (mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com []) by mx0a-00154904.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2uk2rbbyds-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:41:25 -0400
Received: from pps.filterd (m0133268.ppops.net []) by mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com ( with SMTP id x7UFX7On162203 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:41:24 -0400
Received: from mailuogwdur.emc.com (mailuogwdur.emc.com []) by mx0a-00154901.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ukjamtuqe-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:41:24 -0400
Received: from maildlpprd52.lss.emc.com (maildlpprd52.lss.emc.com []) by mailuogwprd51.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id x7UFf80B000616 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:41:23 -0400
X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 mailuogwprd51.lss.emc.com x7UFf80B000616
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=emc.com; s=jan2013; t=1567179683; bh=JBZIdNLQ41scrVuYm+PZjw0FxDY=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=sKMBHPibvOgpO/L2N5cVUs26QZre4fR44bSWrzBorvRpOtH05wvviu8iUitun/JO6 +BsAPn2r/IVnkns2InfGrGUt6rW13OgBpZDlIXqMIik8f3oXGxJEkk1EIOdO4sNr3B DXf45SR+bK3Npw/crYJzr7666kGAbfc5oTJa413s=
Received: from mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com (mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com []) by maildlpprd52.lss.emc.com (RSA Interceptor) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:40:26 -0400
Received: from MXHUB313.corp.emc.com (MXHUB313.corp.emc.com []) by mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.0) with ESMTP id x7UFeR6q024730 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:40:27 -0400
Received: from MX307CL04.corp.emc.com ([fe80::849f:5da2:11b:4385]) by MXHUB313.corp.emc.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 11:40:26 -0400
From: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>
To: "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: TSVWG: WG adoption of draft-white-tsvwg-nqb!
Thread-Index: AdVfSTsXh/eMA9Y2RLeop2cZ3ij2ZA==
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:40:26 +0000
Message-ID: <CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936306BBE54@MX307CL04.corp.emc.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Enabled=True; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_SiteId=945c199a-83a2-4e80-9f8c-5a91be5752dd; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Owner=david.black@emc.com; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_SetDate=2019-08-30T15:16:05.3209104Z; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Name=External Public; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Application=Microsoft Azure Information Protection; MSIP_Label_17cb76b2-10b8-4fe1-93d4-2202842406cd_Extended_MSFT_Method=Manual; aiplabel=External Public
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CE03DB3D7B45C245BCA0D24327794936306BBE54MX307CL04corpem_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Sentrion-Hostname: mailusrhubprd52.lss.emc.com
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.70,1.0.8 definitions=2019-08-30_06:2019-08-29,2019-08-30 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=693 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1906280000 definitions=main-1908300156
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=781 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1906280000 definitions=main-1908300156
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/29BFWR0lVeLKKkDEIx_K_W0fQIY>
Subject: [tsvwg] TSVWG: WG adoption of draft-white-tsvwg-nqb!
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: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:41:31 -0000

In the Montreal TSVWG meeting, there was a strong sense of the room that the TSVWG WG should adopt draft-white-tsvwg-nqb as a starting point for work on an NQB PHB.   The WG call for adoption on this list has been open for over a week, since August 21, and having seen only one objection on the list to adoption of the draft (from Dave Taht), the WG chairs (Gorry, Wes and David) have concluded that the WG rough consensus is to adopt this draft.  It's important to emphasize that the draft is adopted as a *starting point* for TSVWG work, i.e., the current draft content does not represent the rough consensus of the WG.  Significant work will be required to produce an actual PHB spec that is suitable for implementation - see the recent RFC 8622 on the LE PHB (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8622/) for an example of what a PHB spec looks like.

There are a few items that will need attention before the initial -00 WG version of the NQB draft is submitted - these are to avoid confusion about what the WG intends to do:

  1.  The draft needs to be clear that the use of the 0x2A DSCP value as the default for this PHB is a *suggestion by the authors that is subject to change*.  Whether to use that DSCP or a different one is a WG decision; the plan is to discuss and select the default DSCP value starting (and hopefully concluding) in September.
  2.  The criticisms on this list of the "queue protection" requirement in the draft are largely accurate.   The draft needs at least an Editor's Note that this material will be revised, as while the DOCSIS mechanism is an example of how to do queue protection, it is not appropriate to require implementation of that mechanism.   A plausible plan that I have discussed with the authors is to write a set of functional/behavioral requirements for NQB "traffic protection" that can be satisfied by a "queue protection" mechanism such as the DOCSIS mechanism, or by a suitably configured FQ AQM implementation.
  3.  RFC 8325 reflects the IETF consensus on how to map between Diffserv and WiFi QoS, hence the 8.3 section of the NQB draft needs to be modified to be consistent with RFC 8325.
  4.  Similarly, the 8.2 section of the NQB draft needs to be modified to reflect the conclusion of discussion on this topic in Montreal.
Those 4 changes are necessary in the -00 WG version of the NQB draft.

In addition, related to item 2), my expectation (which is open to further discussion) that "traffic protection" will be a "MUST" requirement, perhaps with some well-specified exceptions (including explanations of why the exceptions are ok).   This is because "traffic protection" (e.g., "queue protection" or a suitably configured FQ AQM) appears to be necessary in general to keep queue-building traffic out of the NQB traffic aggregate, as allowing such traffic degrades the properties of the NQB PHB.

Thanks, --David (TSVWG co-chair, will be shepherd for NQB draft).
David L. Black, Senior Distinguished Engineer
Dell EMC, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA  01748
+1 (774) 350-9323 New    Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754