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

["Black, David" <[e-mail]>]

> Precisely *because* of that property. 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.

Provided that the shallow-buffered queue is "configured as specified" ... where the draft still doesn't contain a solid specification of queue configuration.

> Also, to be clear, the draft (particularly with the recent proposed changes*) talks about minimizing incentives , rather than making strong assertions about their absence.

I suppose that's an improvement overall, but for existing WiFi in the absence of traffic protection, it appears to be a distinction without a difference.

Thanks, --David

From: Greg White <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2024 1:28 PM
To: Black, David <[e-mail]>; Black, David <David.Black=[e-mail]>; Livingood, Jason <[e-mail]>; Overcash, Michael (CCI-Atlanta) <[e-mail]>; gwhiteCL/NQBdraft <[e-mail]>; gwhiteCL/NQBdraft <[e-mail]>
Cc: tsvwg IETF list <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gwhiteCL/NQBdraft] Should traffic protection be mandatory to implement? (Issue #48)


[EXTERNAL EMAIL]
DB wrote:
> If NQB is effectively an alternate name for Default, then why does the draft contain extensive discussion of and strong assertions about the absence of incentives to mismark Default QB traffic as NQB?

Precisely *because* of that property. 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.  Also, to be clear, the draft (particularly with the recent proposed changes*) talks about minimizing incentives , rather than making strong assertions about their absence.

* https://github.com/gwhiteCL/NQBdraft/issues/46#issuecomment-2246620922 [github.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/gwhiteCL/NQBdraft/issues/46*issuecomment-2246620922__;Iw!!LpKI!jaRQ2hM9GOhQ-UttcOrBujJI1NYkCRAB62XT4wpyWbOJFr-q7jkrnfp9RUynmDBQmNpo60BaP3sdRPDv_EQ$>
* https://github.com/gwhiteCL/NQBdraft/issues/47#issuecomment-2251030531 [github.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/gwhiteCL/NQBdraft/issues/47*issuecomment-2251030531__;Iw!!LpKI!jaRQ2hM9GOhQ-UttcOrBujJI1NYkCRAB62XT4wpyWbOJFr-q7jkrnfp9RUynmDBQmNpo60BaP3sd2uIhvqk$>

-Greg