Re: [NSIS] AD review comments of draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-16

Roland Bless <bless@tm.uka.de> Fri, 02 October 2009 13:21 UTC

Return-Path: <bless@tm.uka.de>
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 CE5883A69E0 for <nsis@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 06:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.816
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.816 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 Mg8rcTlkqMqf for <nsis@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 06:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FE8F3A6765 for <nsis@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 06:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.10.5]) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtps port 25 id 1Mti6H-0005jG-Td; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:23:14 +0200
Received: from i72ms.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.70.5] helo=smtp.ipv6.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de) by irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtps port 25 id 1Mti6H-0004Z1-Nz; Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:23:09 +0200
Received: from vorta.tm.uka.de (vorta.ipv6.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de [IPv6:2001:638:204:6:21b:fcff:fe96:fe02]) by smtp.ipv6.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A42682FC00A; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:23:09 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vorta.tm.uka.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991A21016B; Fri, 2 Oct 2009 15:23:09 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4AC5FEBD.2030701@tm.uka.de>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:23:09 +0200
From: Roland Bless <bless@tm.uka.de>
Organization: Institute of Telematics, University of Karlsruhe
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060111 Thunderbird/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: NSIS <nsis@ietf.org>
References: <4AC4B492.6070005@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4AC4B492.6070005@ericsson.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (irams1.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de)
X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de)
X-ATIS-AV: Kaspersky (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de)
X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de 1254489795.041903000
Cc: draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [NSIS] AD review comments of draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-16
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: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:21:49 -0000

Hi,

Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> G. Section 5.1.2.2:
> "A QUERY message
>    MAY contain a second QSPEC object."
>      QUERY = COMMON_HEADER
>               [ RII ][ *BOUND_SESSION_ID ]
>               [ PACKET_CLASSIFIER ] [ INFO_SPEC ] QSPEC
> 
> The BNF seem to not allow for a second QSPEC object.

Good catch. I guess that this is a remnant from an earlier
approach.

Our student Matthias Dettling actually found further inconsistencies
related to QSPEC presence in QUERYs.

Section 5.1.2.2 states:
 QUERY messages MUST always include a QSPEC.

Section 4.3 states:
   To make a receiver-initiated reservation, the QNR constructs a QUERY
   message, which may contain a QSPEC object from its chosen QoS model
   (see Figure 8).

So _may_ is not appropriate here since it MUST contain a QSPEC.

Furthermore in section 5.4.2 is written:
   If the QUERY
   contained a QSPEC, it MUST be passed to the RMF where it may be
   modified by the QoS Model specific QUERY processing.

The "if" is clearly wrong since a QSPEC MUST be included and
I guess that the sentence is a duplicate of the earlier statement in the
third paragraph of this section:
  When a QNE receives a QUERY message the QSPEC is passed to the RMF
  for processing.

Regards,
 Roland