Re: QoS NSLP flags

Hi Roland,

For Q1, I think the text meant that the QNI should set to zero, but if 
it didn't, then a QNE probably should be resetting the bit to zero, so 
let it go through.

For Q2, I agree, this would be kind of useful to have. The NSLP is with 
the AD now, so we have to wait for his review. But still, I'd like to 
get other people's reaction to these, as well.

Cheers,
Jukka

Roland Bless wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> I've got two questions:
> 1) would it be good to let any unknown flags intact instead of resetting
>    them? Current text says:
>    "The set of appropriate flags depends on the particular message being
>    processed.  Any bit not defined as a flag for a particular message
>    MUST be set to zero on sending and MUST be ignored on receiving."
>    If I understand the text correctly, an additional flag cannot pass a
>    QNE, or does "set to zero" apply only to the QNI?
> 
> 2) We suggest that the QUERY gets an additional bit in the message
>    flags. Sometimes it might be useful to elicit a RESERVE with the R=1
>    bit set (in the RESERVE, i.e., a REPLACE bit) and sometimes not. So
>    it would be good to have a bit in a QUERY that provides information
>    at the far end on how to the the REPLACE bit in the corresponding
>    RESERVE. Does this make sense?
> 
> Regards,