Subject: [NSIS] QoS NSLP, Packet Classifier

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:01:25 +0200

Section 5.1.3.5 defines the Packet Classifier

The text says:
"
  Value: Contains a variable length MRM-specific data

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   //          Method-specific classifier data (variable)         //
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   At this stage, the QoS NSLP only uses the path-coupled routing MRM.
   The method-specific classifier data is two bytes long and consists of
   a set of flags:

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |X|Y|P|T|F|S|A|B|                      Reserved                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-++-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"

The field, as currently written, is not extensible to a different MRM. 
Hence, you have two options:

* either enhance the field with a MRM type field, or
* delete all the text that could give the reader the impression that 
there might in a later stage an extension that defines other packet 
classifiers based on other MRMs.

Ciao
Hannes

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

---

From: Andrew McDonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:42:35 +0100

> Section 5.1.3.5 defines the Packet Classifier
[snip]
> * either enhance the field with a MRM type field, or

As a QoS NSLP you already have this information - it is carried in the 
MRI supplied to the NSLP from the GIST layer.

In an earlier version we did have an explicit MRM type field, but this 
was removed. Since you already have the information from the GIST data 
it would just create further error cases to deal with, e.g. what happens 
if the NSLP and GIST MRM type indicators are in conflict?

> classifiers based on other MRMs.

The solution may be to add a sentence indicating more clearly how the 
NSLP knows what MRM type is being used.

Andrew