Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-20.txt

Hi Jerry,

Gerald Ash wrote:
> IMO we should allow more space for specified QOSMs.  7 seems like
> insufficient space for future growth (recall that 0 is assigned as the
> default QSPEC Type).

Sure, but I doubt that we need internal signaling with that many QoSMs.
Since this will only be used internally, it should be no problem to
re-use the same values in different domains.

> 1-12: specification required
> 12-15: local/experimental use

having at least one reserved value for future/special use
would probably be a good idea.

> IMO a better alternative would be to expand the space for QSPEC Type, as
> follows:
> 
> In Section 5.1.1 reallocate 7 bits to QPSEC Type as follows:
> 
>  0                   1                   2                   3
>  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |  Vers.|I|  QSPEC Type |  QSPEC Proc.  |      Length           |
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Actually, what I don't like here is that there are no further flags
left for extensions. So I guess that it would be better to have at
least two more bits left as reserved flags (so QSPEC type could be
expanded by 1 bit if needed - however, I doubt that this is really
necessary).

Regards,
 Roland