Hi,
Magnus Westerlund wrote:
G. Section 5.1.2.2:
"A QUERY message
MAY contain a second QSPEC object."
QUERY = COMMON_HEADER
[ RII ][ *BOUND_SESSION_ID ]
[ PACKET_CLASSIFIER ] [ INFO_SPEC ] QSPEC
The BNF seem to not allow for a second QSPEC object.
Good catch. I guess that this is a remnant from an earlier
approach.
Our student Matthias Dettling actually found further inconsistencies
related to QSPEC presence in QUERYs.
Section 5.1.2.2 states:
QUERY messages MUST always include a QSPEC.
Section 4.3 states:
To make a receiver-initiated reservation, the QNR constructs a QUERY
message, which may contain a QSPEC object from its chosen QoS model
(see Figure 8).
So _may_ is not appropriate here since it MUST contain a QSPEC.
Furthermore in section 5.4.2 is written:
If the QUERY
contained a QSPEC, it MUST be passed to the RMF where it may be
modified by the QoS Model specific QUERY processing.
The "if" is clearly wrong since a QSPEC MUST be included and
I guess that the sentence is a duplicate of the earlier statement in the
third paragraph of this section:
When a QNE receives a QUERY message the QSPEC is passed to the RMF
for processing.
Regards,
Roland