Re: [NSIS] QSPEC Comments

Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> Mon, 22 May 2006 15:11 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiC4N-0004BS-2D; Mon, 22 May 2006 11:11:43 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiC4L-0004BN-JW for nsis@ietf.org; Mon, 22 May 2006 11:11:41 -0400
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiC4J-0005Mz-4g for nsis@ietf.org; Mon, 22 May 2006 11:11:41 -0400
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 22 May 2006 15:11:37 -0000
Received: from socks2.netz.sbs.de (EHLO [192.35.17.25]) [192.35.17.25] by mail.gmx.net (mp034) with SMTP; 22 May 2006 17:11:37 +0200
X-Authenticated: #29516787
Message-ID: <4471D4A7.6030703@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 17:11:35 +0200
From: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <gash@att.com>
Subject: Re: [NSIS] QSPEC Comments
References: <9473683187ADC049A855ED2DA739ABCA0DDC77A7@KCCLUST06EVS1.ugd.att.com>
In-Reply-To: <9473683187ADC049A855ED2DA739ABCA0DDC77A7@KCCLUST06EVS1.ugd.att.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4
Cc: nsis <nsis@ietf.org>, "Tschofenig, Hannes" <hannes.tschofenig@siemens.com>
X-BeenThere: nsis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Next Steps in Signaling <nsis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:nsis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis>, <mailto:nsis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: nsis-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Jerry,


I guess that these two issues are largely a matter of the worksplit 
between the QoS NSLP and the QSPEC template draft. I thought that the 
QoS NSLP deals with signaling aspects but I seem to be wrong.

> Section 4 of QoS-NSLP doesn't contain the same info as in Section 6 in
> the QSPEC.  The latter is oriented toward RMF procedures, which properly
> belongs in the QSPEC.  I don't see much overlap between the two
> documents with respect to these procedures.  
> 
> 
>>>>The tunneled QSPEC is never interpreted in the way how the QoS
>>>>NSLP works and hence interior QoS nodes will never see the flag.
> 
> 
>>>What you say is correct.  Interior QNEs will not see the flag, and
>>>nothing is stated in the QSPEC that contradicts that.
> 
> 
>>Who is going to interpret it? 
> 
> 
> As stated in the QSPEC, the flag is interpreted by the QNI, ingress QNE
> (start of tunnel in a domain), egress QNE (end of tunnel in a domain),
> or QNR.

Ciao
Hannes

> 
> Thanks,
> Jerry
> 
> _______________________________________________
> nsis mailing list
> nsis@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
nsis@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis