Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-17.txt - 3.3. Relationship to L4S, classification

[[e-mail]]

Hi Greg,

after having settled the question related to DSCP classification for NQB, there's another issue, I'd prefer the draft to be clear about (or more explicit, as you prefer):

     3.3. Relationship to L4S

     Applications that comply with both the NQB sender requirements in Section 4.1 and the L4S "Prague" requirements in Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-tsvwg-ecn-l4s-id] could mark their packets both with the NQB DSCP and with the ECT(1) value. Packets marked with both the NQB DSCP and the ECT(1) codepoint SHOULD be treated the same as packets marked with either codepoint alone by the traffic protection function (defined in Section 5.2) and by any re-marking/traffic policing function designed to protect unmanaged networks (as described in Section 4.4.1).

From the second statement, the impression is raised that the NQB traffic protection might handle traffic with ECT(1) alone. To me that seems to imply, that traffic with DSCP Default and ECT(1) is classified for the NQB queue. I'd prefer the draft to be explicit about to the classification of DCSP Default traffic with ECT(1) and CE codepoints as either NQB or QB.

Regards, 

Ruediger