David B -05 review -- 11.2. Mobile Networks

[thomas-fossati]

[**] Please check the first paragraph with some 3GPP folks to make sure that it won't cause problems.]      A packet carrying the NQB DSCP SHOULD be routed through the dedicated    low-latency EPS bearer.  A packet that has no associated NQB marking    SHOULD be routed through the default EPS bearer. For robustness wrt additional bearers, it may be better to rephrase the second sentence as a "SHOULD NOT" – e.g., A packet that has no associated NQB marking SHOULD NOT be routed through the low-latency EPS bearer.

[thomas-fossati]

[**] Please check the first paragraph with some 3GPP folks to make sure that it won't cause problems.]

Diego (@dr2lopez) suggests:

OLD:
  "... The established behaviour is rooted partly in the desire to
   prioritise operators' voice services over competing over-the-top
   services and..."

NEW:
  "... The established behaviour is rooted partly in a highly
   restrictive interpretation of network neutrality..."

[thomas-fossati]

Kevin suggests:

Historically, 3GPP mobile networks have utilised "bearers" to
encapsulate each user's user plane traffic through the radio and core
networks. A "dedicated bearer" may be allocated a Quality of Service
(QoS) to apply any prioritisation to its flows at queues and radio
schedulers. Typically an LTE operator provides a dedicated bearer for
IMS VoLTE (Voice over LTE) traffic, which is prioritised in order to
meet regulatory obligations for call completion rates; and a "best
effort" default bearer, for Internet traffic. The "best effort" bearer
provides no guarantees, and hence its buffering characteristics are not
compatible with low-latency traffic. The 5G radio and core systems offer
more flexibility over bearer allocation, meaning bearers can be
allocated per  traffic type (e.g. loss-tolerant, low-latency etc.) and
hence support more suitable treatment of Internet real-time flows.

[gwhiteCL]

included in draft-07