update of base draft

Hi,

I just submitted an update of the base spec.  It should show up fairly 
soon.  While I have still not met all of the requirements in the 
requirements spec, I have made many of the required structural changes. 
  Now we need to discuss these changes, see if they work for the 
technology specific needs, and reach group consensus.

A list of changes is:

16.4 Changes since draft-ietf-gsmpv3-base-02

    1.  Modified transacton identifier to indicate whether it originates
        in the controller or the swtich.

    2.  Per 3.1.1 of the requirements spec deprecated the More result
        flag

    3.  Per 2.9 of the requirements steps removed restriction against use
        of the Replace bit with the Multicast of bi-drectional bit.
        Altered the requirement for Diagnostic message 37 from a MUST to
        a MAY.  This will allow backward compatibility with swtiches that
        do not support simultaneous use of the R flag with either the M
        or B flag.

    4.  Per 2.7.2 of the requirements spec added Bulk Transaction meesage
        13.

    5.  Per 2.8 of the requirements doc added reservation semantics to
        the connection messages, the port management message.  Added a
        recovery alarm message.  I don't think this is finished yet, but
        wanted to get opinions and wanted to give editors of the
        technology specifc docs a chance to beging to work with the new
        structures.  One thing that has not been added yet are error
        messages.  Also a recovery status function probably needs to be
        added. But there were so many changes already at this point I did
        not want to hold up issueing the draft while working on those
        issues.

    6.  Added reservation set message

    7.  Further defined delete reservation behavior to discuss deletion
        of sets

    8.  Modified port management message to use extended technology
        specific  functions


Things I have not yet done include:

- Add text to explain some of the additions in details.
- Add the clarifications requested by the requirements spec.
- Add new diagnostics messages for the new functionality
- Dealt with recovery status and statistics


I am looking for comments and discussion.  I am also hoping that the 
editors of the technology specific docs will review the structure and 
come out with updates (or first draft in the case of TDM) that use this 
structure.

I plan to get another update out by the deadline for IETF58.

a.