Re: [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb, more questions

[Sebastian Moeller <[e-mail]>]

> On Nov 8, 2019, at 00:35, Greg White <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I meant to respond to this point as well:  
> 
>> I believe that the reason that RFC 8325 simply wrings its hands over this issue, as opposed to solving it, is that A) it is a *really* hard problem to solve in an unmanaged network, and B) while it is certainly a problem in theory, there is no evidence that it is a real problem in practice.
> 
>    	[SM] The problem is that there is simply no data, and interpreting this as there is no problem is neither solid science nor engineering. If you have measurements showing that this is no problem with the expected traffic rates with the NQB marking, please feel free to post them to the list or as PM.
> 
> [GW] One data point is that most consumer routers ship with WMM enabled by default.  If there were rampant misuse of DSCP such that WMM was unusable, I would expect that many APs would ship with it disabled by default, and let the user decide whether to risk turning it on.

	[SM] I am not a big fan of such inductive evidence generation. Also I applaud your confidence into vendor sanity. But if I recall correctly to use higher data rates in >=802.11ac WMM is mandatory, so disabling it is as far as I can tell not as straight forward and the naive "just disable it completely" approach seems not in the interest of device manufacturers if that would cost in the number one marketing value, achievable rates in speedtests.

Sebastian