[tsvwg] Re: Intdir early review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-23

["Gorry (erg)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for this review, see one comment below.

> On 24 Jun 2024, at 05:14, Benson Muite via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Benson Muite
> Review result: On the Right Track
> 
> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for <draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-24.txt>.
> These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area
> Directors. Document editors and shepherd(s) should treat these comments just
> like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve
> them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more
> details on the INT Directorate, see
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ .
> 
> Based on my review, if I was on the IESG I would ballot this document as NO
> OBJECTION.
> 
> SUMMARY:
> The draft introduces a differentiated services code point for traffic where
> latency is important. The primary focus is for applications such as IoT and
> video conferencing.  However, the threshold for low bit rate assumes network
> connectivity at least as good as provided by 5G mobile networks. Many places in
> the world still have 4G and even 3G networks.  Remote locations may only be
> served by satellite.  Many IoT applications are not latency sensitive, but are
> low bit rate - for example environment recording applications - but it is
> probably not good to differentiate these from latency sensitive low bit rate
> applications such as sending remote terminal input.  Many video conferencing
> applications (for example Meetecho) offer possibilities to turn of video feeds
> and just have audio and screen sharing.  6G is also being developed and when
> deployed will likely take time to replace 4G and 5G, so some more thought on
> thresholds for NQB PHB is needed.
> 
> SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
> 
> In section 4.1 500Kb/s is quite high on 4G mobile networks, typically what is
> used for video conferencing and can saturate end point link bandwidth.  Would
> expect this to also be high for satellite links. For IoT applications and voice
> probably 50Kb/s is sufficient.
> 
> Informative reference [SA-5G] is an ETSI document that has several versions,
> possibly the latest version 18.5.0 is the one being referred to.
> 
> Should there be references for Cubic and BBR in the introduction, perhaps
> RFC8312 for Cubic and https://github.com/google/bbr for BBR,as the draft
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cardwell-iccrg-bbr-congestion-control-02
> has expired.
I will not comment here on the main points. However  if it’s decided to use a reference to BBR, I do suggest using a reference to the I-D, this is still planned to be updated AFAIK, and is being used as a basis for other transport drafts.
Best wishes,
Gorry
(Tsvwg Co-chair)