RE: Request for comments: DSTE-MIB (draft-nadeau-mpls-dste-mib-00)

["Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <flefauch@cisco.com>]

Hello Sanjay, Jerry,

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS [mailto:gash@att.com] 
>> Sent: 15 February 2003 00:13
>> To: Choudhury, Sanjaya
>> Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; te-wg@ops.ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: Request for comments: DSTE-MIB 
>> (draft-nadeau-mpls-dste-mib-00)
>> 
>> 
>> Sanjay,
>> 
>> > Hi! Your comments on the following draft will be appreciated:
>> > 
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft->>
nadeau-mpls-dste-mib-00.txt
>> > 
>> > Known TBDs:
>> > 	1. Update to reflect the latest DSTE-REQ and DSTE-PROTO
>> > 	2. Update to handle MAR BC Model
>> > 	3. reorg. the reference section.
>> 
>> I'm glad to see that you will include updates to handle the 
>> MAR (Maximum Allocation with Reservation) Model.  I presume 
>> you will also include updates to handle the Maximum 
>> Allocation Model (MAM).  The only model discussed in the MIB 
>> at present is the Russian Doll Model.

I agree with Jerry that MAM should be covered in addition to RDM since
the WG agrees on their respective definition and has agreed to specify
these two BC models asap.

With respect to MAR, while I agree in principle that it will need to
have MIB support once it is specified, I would recommend that this piece
of work is progressed outside of the main DS-TE MIB work. This is
because while the WG agrees that we should investigate MAR further, I
think we are still some time away before we have converged on a final
MAR specification. So we should make sure we don't end up holding the
core DS-TE MIB because of discussion on a longer term model.

Does that make sense?

Cheers

Francois