search

gwhiteCL / NQBdraft

IETF draft on Non-Queue-Building Per-Hop-Behavior
1 stars 2 forks source link

Should RFCs 9330 & 9331 be listed as being Updated? #45

Closed gwhiteCL closed 2 weeks ago

gwhiteCL commented 2 months ago

If so, we'll need to specify exactly the wording changes that are being made to RFC9330 & 9331.

From https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsvwg/XNNyrMOLvqxqPVPuZsWPwwlCCVk/

[GW2] The only update to L4S requirements is the statement: "L4S network functions SHOULD treat packets marked with the NQB DSCP and ECT(1) or CE the same as packets marked with the Default DSCP and the same ECN value. Here, L4S network functions means the L4S Network Node functions (Section 5 of [RFC9331]), and any mechanisms designed to protect the L4S queue (such as those discussed in Section 8.2 of [RFC9330])."

[GW2] In other words, L4S nodes shouldn't handle "L4S+NQB" packets (DSCP45 && (ECT1 || CE)) any differently from "L4S+Default" packets (DSCP0 && (ECT1 || CE)). This recommendation only applies to nodes that support both NQB and L4S.

gwhiteCL commented 2 months ago

Since this recommendation only applies to nodes that support both NQB and L4S, there is no need to update RFCs 9330 & 9331. An implementer who is not implementing NQB is not disadvantaged by being unaware of this recommendation.

gwhiteCL commented 1 month ago

Here is proposed text to make this more clear:

In nodes that support both the NQB PHB and L4S, the L4S network functions SHOULD treat packets marked with the NQB DSCP and ECT(1) or CE the same as packets marked with the Default DSCP and the same ECN value.