Re: QoS NSLP flags

> 
> On 01/26/2009 02:49 PM Martin Stiemerling wrote:
> >> 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?
> 
> I must admit that I was confused by this section, too. From my point of
> view it wouldn't hurt to add a few words clarifying this case, at least
> to prevent us from running into a RAO-like confusion.
> For example something like this:
> »Any bit not defined as a flag for a particular message MUST be set to
> zero on sending, MUST be ignored on receiving, and MUST be forwarded
> unchanged.«

Isn't this reading contradicting? An QoS NSLP node that forwards a message, must anyhow first receive it. So, does this mean to change or leave the bit?

  Martin