Operations asks which markings identify AI RDMA versus management on the city fabric. What should the municipal team document and maintain?

Operations needs a durable answer for which markings identify AI RDMA versus management on the city fabric. The municipal team should document and maintain a QoS classification map that records which Cos/DSCP values carry AI RDMA versus management (and related classes). That map is what lets night shift, automation, and auditors classify, troubleshoot, and change policy without guessing. A PFC priority table that records which switch ports enable lossless transport does not document which Cos/DSCP values identify AI RDMA versus management, so it cannot serve as the classification map operations needs. An ECN threshold profile that defines congestion marking behavior for AI RDMA queues does not record which Cos/DSCP values carry AI RDMA versus management, so it leaves the fabric without the required classification map. A trust boundary policy that describes where Cos values receive remarking at downtown aggregation uplinks does not document which Cos/DSCP values carry AI RDMA versus management across the fabric, so it cannot replace the classification map. Exam caveat: the map must match what devices actually remark and trust—documentation that drifts from live policy is worse than useless during an outage. Operational check: publish the civic Cos/DSCP map for AI RDMA versus management, verify live captures match the document on leaf and spine, store the map in the municipal network source of truth, and review it whenever NIC or fabric QoS templates change.