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

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <gash@att.com>]

All,

I had proposed earlier:

> Can anyone give a practical example of where LOM is needed? 
> Unless we see that, my preference would be to drop it.   

Since posting that, some examples have been given (on the list and privately) that perhaps illustrate how LOM can be used in practice.

Furthermore, based on the discussion so far:

1. many people support leaving LOM in because they're reluctant to give up the extra flexibility (even though they don't offer specific supporting examples).
2. many people feel that the LOM extension is very simple, therefore why the concern, just leave it there.

Also, I argued against having LOM progressed separately, I think that would just complicate matters, and leave the BC models, Proto extensions, etc. in a state of limbo (possible awaiting a LOM extension later).  I had argued to either keep LOM, or drop LOM, but not leave it in the 'in between' state.

Overall, I don't think the case has been made to drop LOM, and, given that, I believe the better option is to leave LOM as is and not progress it as a separate effort.

Thanks,
Jerry