Re: QoS NSLP flags

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> Roland Bless
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 2:52 PM
> To: [email protected]; Jukka MJ Manner; Georgios Karagiannis; Andrew
> McDonald
> Subject: [NSIS] QoS NSLP flags
> 
> 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?

This reads like common practice, i.e., ignore on receiving but set them right on sending. Any good reason to change this?

> 
> 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?

I'm not sure whether this is required but in any case this would mean a hard change to the specification and not just an editing of it. 

I don't see this as a bug but it is optional, i.e, no change required.

  Martin

> 
> Regards,
> --
> Roland Bless -- WWW: http://www.tm.uka.de/~bless
> Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe, Germany
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

[email protected]

NEC Laboratories Europe - Network Research Division
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014