Subject: [NSIS] remove packet_classifier object from QoS-NSLP

From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:46:30 +0200

Dear all

After trying to incorporate the QoS-NSLP PACKET_CLASSIFIER  object, in 
our implementation, we have seen that the need of using such an object for 
filtering and packet classification is not needed.

The main reason for that is that the RMF is responsible for modifying/interacting
with the packet classification function, see Figure 1 in QoS-NSLP draft. Both 
functions are not QoS-NSLP functions.
Thus I do not understand why we have to generate such an object, since
the QoS model, used in each node, should actually specify by using a local policy on each node,
which filters and how such filters must be used.
Therefore I propose to remove the PACKET_CLASSIFIER from the 
QOS-NSLP specification.

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

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 22:13:11 +0300 (EEST)

Hi Georgios, all,

If people would rather see the packet classifier removed from the QoS-NSLP 
spec, then I would still like to see it defined in the QSPEC template. It 
would be good from an implementation point of view, and implementation 
effort, if there was a single suggestion on how to specify packet 
classifiers in QoS models.

Still, I'd like to hear other views on what to do with the classifier.

Cheers,
Jukka

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 22:14:35 +0300 (EEST)

Dear all,

I proposed earlier to re-format the COMMON HEADER
 
The format of the COMMON HEADER seems wierd to me. The message type is 16
bits and can also hold flags? I would change this structure from

[16-bit message type][16-bit flags]

to 

[8-bit message type][8-bit message-specific flags][16-bit generic flags]

Much cleaner to me, easier to parse, and leaves room for further
enhancement through new flags, in my humble opinion. Do we really need
16-bits, to allow for 65535 different messages? We only have 4 now.

AFAIK, Rob and Andrew have commented that this sounds like a good idea, 
and Georgios is somewhat against. Thus, currently, 3 people are humming 
for "for", and 1 is humming for "against".

I'd like to hear more "humms". If I don't hear other "humms", I will
deduce that there are no objections to make this change to the next draft.

Regards,
Jukka

---

From: Roland Bless <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:31:02 +0200

> deduce that there are no objections to make this change to the next draft.

I'm in favor of re-formatting the common-header.
Regards,
 Roland

---

From: Xiaoming Fu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:40:54 +0200

i agree too.
Xiaoming

---

From: "Georgios Karagiannis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:06:24 +0200

I agree too!

Best Regards,
Georgios

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:11:16 +0300 (EEST)

Hi all,

So, it seems that all I have now have are "humms" that support the
proposal, no one has raised objections. Thus, this change, too, will be
added in the next release of the QoS NSLP. Thank you all.

FYI, there will be a lot more changes, too. We have tried very hard to get
rid of our list of open issues. ;)

Regards,
Jukka

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Georgios Karagiannis wrote:

> I agree too!
> 
> Best Regards,
> Georgios
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Xiaoming Fu" <[email-masked]>