Re: [NSIS] AD comments on draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-21

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Thu, 29 October 2009 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nsis@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6951B3A67E7 for <nsis@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.121
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Q1=0.227]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wwWlMYA-szG4 for <nsis@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw5.ericsson.se (mailgw5.ericsson.se [193.180.251.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7D83A67A3 for <nsis@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:49:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb24-b7b12ae000007bda-74-4ae9c7a38335
Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw5.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 30.BB.31706.3A7C9EA4; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:49:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.177]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:49:39 +0100
Received: from [147.214.183.163] ([147.214.183.163]) by esealmw129.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:49:39 +0100
Message-ID: <4AE9C7A3.7050805@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:49:39 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gerald Ash <gash5107@yahoo.com>
References: <823546.56279.qm@web63606.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <823546.56279.qm@web63606.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Oct 2009 16:49:39.0541 (UTC) FILETIME=[CE366050:01CA58B7]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: NSIS <nsis@ietf.org>, Georgios Karagiannis <karagian@cs.utwente.nl>, "draft-ietf-nsis-qspec@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec@tools.ietf.org>, David Black <black_david@emc.com>
Subject: Re: [NSIS] AD comments on draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-21
X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling <nsis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsis>
List-Post: <mailto:nsis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:49:26 -0000

Hi,

Yes, I was more interested in the answer than necessary addition to the
documents. However, the text proposal is good.

Sorry for not being able to respond before the cut-off.

/Magnus

Gerald Ash skrev:
> Hi Georgios,
>  
> I agree with your suggestion, thank you for that.
>  
> Magnus, does Georgios' suggestion take care of your comment #11?
>  
> Thanks,
> Regards,
> Jerry
> 
> --- On *Sat, 10/24/09, Georgios Karagiannis /<karagian@cs.utwente.nl>/*
> wrote:
> 
> 
>     From: Georgios Karagiannis <karagian@cs.utwente.nl>
>     Subject: Re: [NSIS] AD comments on draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-21
>     To: "Magnus Westerlund" <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, "Gerald
>     Ash" <gash5107@yahoo.com>
>     Cc: "David Black" <black_david@emc.com>,
>     "draft-ietf-nsis-qspec@tools.ietf.org"
>     <draft-ietf-nsis-qspec@tools.ietf.org>, "NSIS" <nsis@ietf.org>
>     Date: Saturday, October 24, 2009, 3:33 AM
> 
>     Hi Magnus
> 
>     Regarding comment 11:
>     >>> 11. This may seem out of context but I do want to know the
>     answer to how
>     >>> the situation is handled when QNI and QNR are neighbors on a non QoS
>     >>> enabled network.
>     >> 
>     >> What "situation" are you referring to here?  IMO you can't have a QNI
>     >> and QNR in a "non QoS enabled network".  By definition, a QNI and QNR
>     >> are only defined in an NSIS enabled network (i.e., a QoS enabled
>     network).
>     >
>     >I am asking what is happening in these cases where a QNI has the QNR as
>     >peer and there are no network support. Clearly you will not get any
>     QoS,
>     >but is it clear to both QNI and QNR that this is the situation?
>     >
> 
>     I think that the solution for this situation is provided by QoS-NSLP. In
>     particular, this situation is detected by uing the generic flag BREAK
>     (B), see Section 5.1.1 Common header, in the QoS-NSLP draft, see below:
> 
>     BREAK (B) - when set, indicates that there are routers along the path
>     where QoS cannot be provided.
> 
>     Maybe it will be good to add a sentence in the QSPEC draft that
>     emphasizes."
> 
>     "As specified in QoS-NSLP, when there are routers along the path between
>     QNI and QNR where QoS cannot be provided then the QoS-NSLP generic flag
>     BREAK (B) is set."
> 
>     Best regards,
>     Georgios
> 
> 


-- 

Magnus Westerlund

IETF Transport Area Director
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------