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

Jukka Manner <jukka.manner@tkk.fi> Wed, 07 October 2009 20:55 UTC

Return-Path: <jukka.manner@tkk.fi>
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 55B8628C0D9 for <nsis@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:55:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.094
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.505, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 cYltu2WOWN1Y for <nsis@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-1.hut.fi (smtp-1.hut.fi [130.233.228.91]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 387313A67F4 for <nsis@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (katosiko.hut.fi [130.233.228.115]) by smtp-1.hut.fi (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id n97Kuiuo028170; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:56:44 +0300
Received: from smtp-1.hut.fi ([130.233.228.91]) by localhost (katosiko.hut.fi [130.233.228.115]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 20852-209-3; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:56:44 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from smtp.netlab.hut.fi (luuri.netlab.hut.fi [130.233.154.177]) by smtp-1.hut.fi (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id n97KqwGL026914; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:52:58 +0300
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.netlab.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 239981E1D2; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:52:58 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at luuri.netlab.hut.fi
Received: from smtp.netlab.hut.fi ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (luuri.netlab.hut.fi [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id TW9GCgNngfXJ; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:52:54 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from mailsrv.netlab.hut.fi (mailsrv.netlab.hut.fi [130.233.154.190]) by smtp.netlab.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id A279A1E1C7; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:52:46 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [192.168.0.156] (a91-154-4-72.elisa-laajakaista.fi [91.154.4.72]) by mailsrv.netlab.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 650ED120050; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:52:46 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4ACCE8A7.7050408@tkk.fi>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:14:47 +0300
From: Jukka Manner <jukka.manner@tkk.fi>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roland Bless <bless@tm.uka.de>
References: <4AC4B492.6070005@ericsson.com> <2727_1254489827_ZZ0KQW00H2R2JM5Q.00_4AC5FEBD.2030701@tm.uka.de>
In-Reply-To: <2727_1254489827_ZZ0KQW00H2R2JM5Q.00_4AC5FEBD.2030701@tm.uka.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TKK-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.1.2-hutcc at katosiko.hut.fi
Cc: draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp@tools.ietf.org, NSIS <nsis@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: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:55:07 -0000

Hi Roland, thanks for the note, we'll fix this one, too.

Jukka

Roland Bless wrote:
> 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
> 

-- 
Jukka MJ Manner, Professor, PhD.  Phone:  +358+(0)9+451 2481
Helsinki University of Technology Mobile: +358+(0)50+5112973
Department of Communications      Fax:    +358+(0)9+451 2474
and Networking (Comnet)           Office: G320 (Otakaari 5A)
P.O. Box 3000, FIN-02015 TKK      E-mail: jukka.manner@tkk.fi
Finland                           WWW:    www.comnet.tkk.fi