Subject: [NSIS] Problem in QoS-NSLP draft

From: David Palma <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 23:52:40 +0100

Hi all,

I'm from the University of Coimbra and I'm currently implementing the 
QoS-NSLP.

In page 61 of the draft (draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp-10.txt) about RESERVE 
message processing, I found:

  If the ACKNOWLEDGE flag is set, the QNE MUST acknowledge its state
  installation action. It does so by sending a RESPONSE with an
  INFO_SPEC indicating that the reservation is installed at the QNE
  (code 0x03).

And in page 63 about RESPONSE message processing I found:

  In addition, a RESPONSE message MUST be sent when the ACKNOWLEDGE
  flag is set or when an error occurs while processing a received
  message. If the received message contains an RII object and the
  ACKNOWLEDGE flag is set, a QNE generates a RESPONSE without RII if
  the QNE is not the QNR.  In this case a successful RESPONSE carries
  the INFO_SPEC with success code 0x01 and the received message is
  forwarded further along the path towards the QNR.

What is the value that we are supposed to include in the INFO_SPEC? 0x03 
or 0x01?
In my opinion regarding this part of the INFO_SPEC description:

     o  Success:

        *  0x01 - State installation succeeded

        *  0x02 - Reservation created: reservation installed on
                  complete path (sent by last node).

        *  0x03 - Reservation accepted: reservation installed at this
                  QNE, but not yet installed on the rest of the path.

        *  0x04 - Reservation created but modified: reservation
                  installed, but bandwidth reserved was not the maximum
                  requested.

0x03 would be the most accurate value to include.

Best Regards,

David Palma

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

---

From: Jukka MJ Manner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 23:02:44 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

The ACK-flag will be removed from the next version of the spec. People 
have felt it is not really needed, GIST can provide the reliability that 
the ACK-flag was supposed to bring at the NSLP layer.

Jukka

On Wed, 3 May 2006, David Palma wrote:

> What is the value that we are supposed to include in the INFO_SPEC? 0x03 or
> 0x01?