Subject: RE: [NSIS] RE: qos-nslp-00

From: "Geib, Ruediger" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:59:08 +0200

Hello Cornelia,

my comments may be found in line.

Regards, Rüdiger

|We deliberately refer to the state to be refreshed by the RSN 
|(minimally) rather than by the session ID. 
|
|Summary refreshes should be handled with caution, we should be 
|sure it is the correct state that is being refreshed. If we 
|just use session ID, we dont know what possibly obsolete state 
|might be refreshed. By matching the RSN in the summary refresh 
|with the locally stored RSN, a nodes knows whether it is 
|refreshing the correct state. 
|
|Vice versa, when the RSN in the summary refresh does not match 
|the local RSN, the refresh will be disregared - which makes 
|sense, because a problem must have occurred (i.e. a node does 
|not have the most up-to-date state information).

Yes, and this node could be the one ignoring the refresh with 
the sequence number not matching the on in his local database.

|Originally the idea was to make RSNs monotonically increasing 
|(remember they have only local significance), so the newest 
|RESERVE can always be identified. For some reason this idea 
|didnt make it into the current version of the ID (I just 
|noticed) I am not sure this was on purpose.
|
|Of course all this should become clear from reading the ID. We 
|should check where it can be clarified. 
|
|Does this address your concerns?

Not quite. But I'll wait for the authors to produce some 
more text.

|Cornelia
|

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