RE: Dropping the Local Overbooking Multiplier (LOM) method from DS-TE specs?

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

All,

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS [mailto:gash@att.com] 
>> Sent: 02 June 2003 01:59
>> To: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
>> Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Lai, Wai S (Waisum), ALABS
>> Subject: RE: Dropping the Local Overbooking Multiplier (LOM) 
>> method from DS-TE specs?
>> 
>> 
>> All,
>> 
>> I'm not sure where we stand on keeping LOM or dropping LOM.

My perception is that, so far, :
	- a number of people have argued in favor of taking LOM out of
the base spec (incl Dimitry, Jerry, Siva, myself)
	- some people (I believe this includes Sanjaya) would have a
problem if the LOM work was completely "dropped", but would not have a
problem if LOM is documented in a seperate document. 
	- some people (eg Sandy) inquired about whether we could not
achieve the same net effect without LOM anyway, but now agree that,
while we can do quite a lot without LOM, it is not possible to
(accurately) meet the (debated) extra requirement.
	- noone has expressed objections to taking LOM out of the base
spec to move it to another document.

Based on this, unless we hear different opinions shortly, my proposal
will be to:
	- issue the next versions of -proto, -russian and -mam without
LOM, so these can go to IESG Last Call promptly (Standards for -proto,
Experimental for -russian and -mam)
	- issue a separate document (-lom) on LOM which can be
progressed in Experimental track.

Please let me know if you have concerns with this proposal.

Cheers

Francois