AD evaluation: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-mar-02.txt

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I have already received answers from Jerry when I brought
the below to his attention.
Jerry, feel free to post them to the list too, so that
everyone knows where you want to go.

I do want the WG members to be aware of the status, thus
this posting.

I believe Jerry is getting ready to post a new revision.
But what exatcly needs to be changed and added may also depend
a bit on what fixes we will agree to for the base protocol spec
(see my review comments for that posted yesterday).

Jerry, there are some more/new comments under nits/admin below.
Pls take a look.

More or less serious:

- In sect 6 I see:

    Now let's say an LSP arrives for CT2 needing 5 units of bandwidth (i.e.,
    DBW = 5).  We need to decide based on Table 1 whether to admit this
    LSP or not.  Since for CT2

    RESERVED_BW2 < BC2 (10 < 20), and
    DBW < UNRESERVED_BW (i.e., 10 - 10 < 5)

    Table 1 says to admit the LSP.

  Should that be 
    DBW < UNRESERVED_BW (i.e., 5 < 10)  ??

- Your Security considerations refers to the requiremwents.
  It probably would be better to refer to the PROTO doc, like
  the RDM and MAM doc do? I know that the PROTO doc needs
  to be improved for the security considerations.

- I do not see that you state that your model requires/depends on
  the protocol extensions as described in the PROTO document.
  Does it not depend on that? If so then I may not have understood
  it yet.
  If it does depend, then I wonder if you do not need to get a
  Model ID assigned (as in sect 5.1 of PROTO document, where it
  does assign 0 for RDM and 1 for MAM).
  I think that such assignments should not be done in the PROTO
  doc itself but in each model-specific document. But in any
  event, I see none for MAR and wonder if that is correct

Nits/admin

- in sect 2 I see a couple of "3D" strings, which I suspect
  need to be "=" signs, correct?  This is the text:

    RESERVED_BWck: reserved bandwidth-in-progress on CTc on link k (0 <3D c
    <3D MaxCT-1), RESERVED_BWck 3D total amount of the bandwidth reserved
    by all the established LSPs which belong to CTc.

    UNRESERVED_BWck: unreserved link bandwidth on CTc on link k specifies
    the amount of bandwidth not yet reserved for CTc, UNRESERVED_BWck 3D
    MAX_RESERVABLE_BWk - sum [RESERVED_BWck (0 <3D c <3D MaxCT-1)].

- Table 4 in appendix A.2
  The text just before the table talks about "30% general overload"
  while the caption of the table talks about "50% General Overload"
  Should they be in sync?

- Can you add pagination please?

- Although an IPR statement (RFC2026, sect 10) is not mandatory, it would
  be good to add one. Certainly if we plan to move one or more
  of the BC models to stds track in the future.

- If the MAR BC Model ID gets requested in this document (which would be
  my preference), then we also need an IANA Considerations Section.

- Try to be consistent with the base protocol spec in that you use the
  same capitalization/spelling for "Bandwidth Contraints Model".
  There are possibly other such strings/prhases as well that could
  benefit from more consistency.

Thanks,
Bert