Subject: RE: [NSIS] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-11.txt

From: Christian Dickmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:54:38 +0200

Hi,

I just had a brief look at the new version of the QSPEC template draft
(version 11). I did not make a real review and I also did not look
into any protocol operation issues, but just had a look at the new 
QSPEC-1 parameters. 
I found several issues that make it hard to read, understand or implement
the specification. 

My comments are:
- 7.2.2 Traffic Parameter: Make that two objects, that can be distinguished
  based on the ID! Interpretation based on the length is a mess. It makes
  the life of implementors much easier, if you can directly judge from the ID.
- 7.2.2 Traffic Paramater: "<Traffic> = <Bandwidth> <Token Bucket-1>", but
  "The above notation means that either <Bandwidth> or <Token Bucket-1>
   sub-parameters can be populated in the <Traffic> parameter."
  Please use a notation, that stands for itself. To me, this notation means:
  The traffic parameter is built by bandwidth AND token bucket-1. My suggestion:
  <Traffic> = [<Bandwidth>] [<Token Bucket-1>]
  and say, that one and only one of them MUST be present.
- 7.2.2.1 Bandwidth Sub-Parameter:  "<Bandwidth> can
   be represented using single-precision IEEE floating point." This is a 
  specification, right? So please say how it actually IS represented.
- 7.2.4 <Priority> Parameter:
  "+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |    Preemption Priority        |      Defending Priority       |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   +   Admission   |         RPH Namespace         | RPH Priority  |
   +   Priority    |                               |               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               Priority Parameters(Reserved)                   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+"
  Do you really mean, that Admission priority spans two rows (meaning
  two 32-bit words? If not, please use an abbreviated form of Admission
  Priority, like "Admission Prio.".

- Several of the issues above apply to more than just the referenced
  section, for example the issue regarding notation.

Regards,
Christian Dickmann

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis