[tsvwg] WGLC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-23

Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com> Tue, 28 May 2024 23:23 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
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 F0C84C15199D for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2024 16:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, 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=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IIAU-SM1ujG8 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2024 16:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x92f.google.com (mail-ua1-x92f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::92f]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78BA2C15154E for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2024 16:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x92f.google.com with SMTP id a1e0cc1a2514c-8031c5bfe3bso186895241.0 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2024 16:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1716938633; x=1717543433; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=657yRgrmUjTreA5Jha3n3UnJGT93mEERYIdArdypi0c=; b=c09UcnH6G4hjXTDDhft1S0HwhEm8VuQRtIkcVwb56oZ0xETD783HE4sKv/8mwFAeQx hT9cr6A2k3ESpZzFmPSjGJ+G3cRezN4p4iWETemNJC81ZIatcvehKknSYvDeTQMzkAGg W1kmq7TTShx8FU04duy8dM0E5fAovVP7I4VRucXSvvUtWS2/lJ0ZS4Vt7zzjXpCOJP9j gj6iVaY66lITU3esk0QGlctFMLpzN4fAkAVqBBRkRPVaXRRk/G5gu4/23w2DkiA3OGmM AsVO+tVfwjzQljAo+ToPeKOx9IEOfxgHxE9p0AOhnmHUE1R2aWlEw7Au3cW9ZX6GdXc/ d2eg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1716938633; x=1717543433; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=657yRgrmUjTreA5Jha3n3UnJGT93mEERYIdArdypi0c=; b=s0yKKfQDhOVWEMPxc6MLv4lDyftk2xR2jhwMkepJkpASIcXcO32t1Nq9w8vBVSFk+K 6BcBDC8HkiUj5NIVvw2GuRt3VkYEgz++NwY8esv7ZURyKH+PoNwmIuFmtLalfISK1P0T AxNc2a9DK+ixz7jFv4IemSJAdk2tDDPMD8RRaN48XS3aVzBkhacNmGEayifRNDo6JRk1 nMnubumOI6awvMXtwd/0ZWHjf8gf8ZMuAW+t3Us5HggV/9X1tcsA3tt6rTmEmL+KCyAc xfOaukFJsdhud/dOT0URtcIP5dsypylBXNtDRY7G2h2cZbV+3TRHFrAzKe314F1AKIDm gUbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwibvH9DQzu281rIeNky/TV4OZmnSyd1K9bql9rm9LBBUQykdmE d/BgXct0IjdSmTr6xGyZXKIg1q4orPj0gViTo3/E5CDVXahOCcqnhBPJ2s+DaPFHLu/QvV3oxoA Ckmr9P3aJZ6G6//mEhgX0ZBvFeIUSyrCt
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHLXiAJK5yyr5u2XKMl66JwgzQEMbdYO8KrxHovbwl2Bz8yFhi6z0HlrPx2g+32AnvXqtf1rksBuIx14fMaCRs=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:2273:b0:47e:f85b:61aa with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-48b9cda160cmr439116137.1.1716938632966; Tue, 28 May 2024 16:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 16:23:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM4esxSfvesaW6dH0GB9_NKUhzWgXcg9SApUcxE=VM86e3jeYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: tsvwg <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000051b8f406198bed29"
Message-ID-Hash: 6KSRDK4L447RT2Y7UCYGQDAJC52MQS6X
X-Message-ID-Hash: 6KSRDK4L447RT2Y7UCYGQDAJC52MQS6X
X-MailFrom: martin.h.duke@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tsvwg.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [tsvwg] WGLC review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-23
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/7GX1z1jF836xCAHCV7whSLDl8Ms>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsvwg>
List-Help: <mailto:tsvwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tsvwg-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tsvwg@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tsvwg-leave@ietf.org>

- This document appears to rely heavily on magic numbers derived from
current link characteristics, and it's not clear how those can evolve over
time. There's some loose language about traffic policing and appropriate
responses to that. DSCP is a somewhat more loosely defined area than
others, but I was hoping for a little more precision in a standard.

- I wonder if keeping a token bucket is really needed, or just keeping a
very small queue and looking at what flows are filling up that queue is
sufficient to identify bad actors.

Nits:

(1) "A node supporting the NQB PHB makes no guarantees on latency"

Doesn't the size of the queue provide an upper bound on latency?

(4.1) Is the number of bytes sent counted at the IP layer (i.e it counts
the IP header and all layers above it?)

Martin