IETF Logo Mail Archive

[tsvwg] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gwhiteCL/NQBdraft] Should traffic protection be mandatory to implement? (Issue #48)

Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com> Thu, 25 July 2024 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <chromatix99@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 4817EC14F685 for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.858
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.858 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_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable 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 byBh3SfEGlKD for <tsvwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x130.google.com (mail-lf1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) (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 D6183C14F61B for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x130.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-52efd855adbso765197e87.2 for <tsvwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1721935643; x=1722540443; darn=ietf.org; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=fKlPfUm3tOD3sG3J3r33vvGRTj7EyjlOZBccDLWLAoc=; b=T9VSGSY+KdQEvxEnB1DTnTbCu88PIA8TL0L7B3n5l1oqXpxiNpHLmuR4QjdbBtDe4q NY1WIpRRGL7jvTOsmeeON9sTOwTSQnM2M+WAixqhniiNriURxVodiGqwvfDDoAgJdVof QLB8XiJkEFaNYOdT+xIHSfmS6+t8t+74TpsuoU6w9mccXW4Sen8Sh9d8p84gpD+Co9NH YmmfnQ6RX/Bjvxrn2NIyGXv3cRj0fMXpJGENTg14FgDmWkcTRamzFmEUSqgV8rQFfdDB IWh/R9uXCTvW8syU3qqvoqBJWbvq1w92mPJbh1HA54Dq7qM4gOVxcYqnmrj8goXl237n v/oQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1721935643; x=1722540443; h=to:references:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:cc:date :in-reply-to:from:subject:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=fKlPfUm3tOD3sG3J3r33vvGRTj7EyjlOZBccDLWLAoc=; b=ENOk/b+L6zHn/TePzpHuCullH6tTHxkPCy+r1cZsMNAlf8LEv2oruZ0MrvXnz26J0Z u7tPro8fg6D8KNtCnUtPYRunODaTDBJ4OJji8INNlXeMYvA9cM3PiiByHj7vTms4iHym a7tgzeTcCSMxSphCpdgj18EBsGSSRWIWX9neSf41O8vF/lRAlpYXy9CHPH/3kv92oa/h 45zEmDDcO2Dp2bjIhjQ39Lv1GRwUF6zYm2trCX00b+/ZsGR30H3zG6QYHIrKSToQAqcj YBXgiFUoQuCHXcm0uLCEPTbFXIfNrPf92s4P75GiqmTgNeA3R6Cc7bNT4N0E5LpZtbM/ ESDg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWqhStI6K0Vm/fpZIiUkYvp2ID0ByOf4P+lbwr5lcPsNIdnsMNuM/7+6OrWg8x4fsBB9a6gDL0FnXohByO4VA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxhM6hzFXzY4J+628TUYE1Xzxb6IYZGvMMd7Yf/DpIuIdvvRmlw BpgnBVZyjsN1WzYfIL+3Z2osYebfiaYWNP5DyzgiP9eftYCfRhnY
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHoqCKfFYDAQ/8ahfzqxdsfHvH2pW34O3m6wrZqSmzXsX5N9rqQcrk5fsaDzvpmDpkclQtrcQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:ea7:b0:52f:d090:6da6 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-52fd3f9e154mr3097612e87.55.1721935642841; Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (37-219-6-3.nat.bb.dnainternet.fi. [37.219.6.3]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 2adb3069b0e04-52fd5c2d19bsm297502e87.260.2024.07.25.12.27.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Jul 2024 12:27:22 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\))
From: Jonathan Morton <chromatix99@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AD908DDA-1F0A-4027-81C3-8E4FDF430352@CableLabs.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 22:27:21 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6C575469-5428-47DB-B8AB-3DED731C7E58@gmail.com>
References: <gwhiteCL/NQBdraft/issues/48@github.com> <gwhiteCL/NQBdraft/issues/48/2244060936@github.com> <MN2PR19MB404591B9BAA1AEED7BBB900983A92@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <LV2PR01MB7622B7EA53C95951987C9B0B9FA92@LV2PR01MB7622.prod.exchangelabs.com> <MN2PR19MB4045E01E9923873F4A0BBD4883AA2@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <6F90E433-3EC7-4A07-851B-8DEDE30061D7@comcast.com> <MN2PR19MB4045D937AF1494C11D8218E083AA2@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <F8D37F2E-206C-414F-A25A-24FF32C607C3@comcast.com> <MN2PR19MB40457246F85DE00DE26D8B3883AA2@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <BB46A9CC-5D74-41B2-99F9-3A2697B1E3D2@CableLabs.com> <MN2PR19MB4045A317045E7DBB364235EB83AA2@MN2PR19MB4045.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <AD908DDA-1F0A-4027-81C3-8E4FDF430352@CableLabs.com>
To: Greg White <g.white=40CableLabs.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22)
Message-ID-Hash: E4ICHPSSYYNY3JMRKURI6D5YJX3MJLAA
X-Message-ID-Hash: E4ICHPSSYYNY3JMRKURI6D5YJX3MJLAA
X-MailFrom: chromatix99@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
CC: "Black, David" <David.Black@dell.com>, "Black, David" <David.Black=40dell.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Overcash, Michael (CCI-Atlanta)" <michael.overcash@cox.com>, gwhiteCL/NQBdraft <reply+AB2VULW2XRH6MPK23ABRZQOEVLRFREVBNHHI5USV5Y@reply.github.com>, gwhiteCL/NQBdraft <NQBdraft@noreply.github.com>, tsvwg IETF list <tsvwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [tsvwg] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gwhiteCL/NQBdraft] Should traffic protection be mandatory to implement? (Issue #48)
List-Id: Transport Area Working Group <tsvwg.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/Cj2qOpedEigp-U1jOB3N5dMbDgg>
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>

> On 25 Jul, 2024, at 8:28 pm, Greg White <g.white=40CableLabs.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Since there is no priority elevation or reserved bandwidth, but only a shallow-buffered queue and otherwise Default treatment, there isn’t an incentive for applications that need a deep buffer to try to get anything “special” by picking the wrong codepoint.

But that is not true in all existing implementations of NQB - notably the DualQ also used for L4S.  Which is what Sebastian has been talking about in this thread.

 - Jonathan Morton

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status