Re: [Cake] [tsvwg] draft-ietf-tsvwg-nqb-15.txt vs the cake AQM

[Greg White <g.white@cablelabs.com>]

Sebastian,

Please don't....

-Greg

On 3/14/23, 10:51 AM, "tsvwg on behalf of Sebastian Moeller" <tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of moeller0@gmx.de <mailto:moeller0@gmx.de>> wrote:
Hi Ruerdiger,

> On Mar 14, 2023, at 16:09, <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de <mailto:Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>> <Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de <mailto:Ruediger.Geib@telekom.de>> wrote:
> 
> Dave,
> 
> thanks for asking - I'm not an NQB author, and my know-how on Linux QoS / Cake is fairly zero. Did you want to address Greg?
> 
> I myself am still struggling to understand how NQB operates. I understand the idea behind it, but questions on operation still remain.
> 
> NQB has been designed for AC_VI, not AC_VO.

This is not how I remember it... it is designed to operate at slightly elevated conditional priority over AC_BE, it is just that WiFI does not offer that so Greg went for the next best thing AC_VI happily accepting the airtime unfairness this is going to introice. I think calling this designed for AC_VI is maked "designed" do too much work in that sentence.

[GW] There is no "slightly elevated conditional priority" in the NQB draft. The NQB queue is to be given equal priority to Default. That is written in the draft. Please don't try to misconstrue it.

[GW] I'm really upset about your implication that I am "happily accepting" the situation with legacy Wi-Fi.  This is extremely disrespectful and should not be tolerated by the WG.  As should be clear to everyone who's been reading the discussion on this (or who has read the draft) this decision was a compromise, and in my view the best option out of the available imperfect options. I would appreciate it if you would treat me, and the other members of this WG with respect.