[tsvwg] Re: Request to review diffserv spec: draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb

[Alex Burr <[e-mail]>]

Hi Vasilenko, tsvwg

See [AB] inline

On Monday, 27 May 2024 at 07:26, Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.eduard=[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi all,
> Brian has attracted my attention to the draft.
> 
> I believe that the document has a small contradiction to itself:
> It is rightly stated that per-flow AQM is not scalable, the separate queue is proposed instead.
> At the same time, the protection proposed against malicious actors is proposed per-flow (I could not propose a better one too).
> Hence, we could implement something per-flow (like FQ-Codel) in the first place - we do not need this mechanism, it looks redundant.

[AB] the draft refers to an example mechanism, draft-briscoe-docsis-q-protection. 
I'm not an author of either draft, and I don't want to claim anything on their behalf. But one thing that's
of interest is that that mechanism, if I've understood it correctly, scales not in the number of flows overall
but with the number of non-compliant flows. It seems plausible that
only a small, fixed number of resources for non-compliant flows would provide a sufficient incentive for many scenarios.
Eg, if a developer classifies their flows as NQB without reading the docs properly, and finds that their application is punished,
they are most likely to revert the classification.
I'm not sure that draft-briscoe-docsis-q-protection recommends a sufficient punishment, but that can be discussed. There is also some
discussion of its behavior under DoS.

Alex