dyn part draft

hi,

a few points:

- one funny coincidence while this draft has no real reference to router 
partitioning anymore, the ForCES req. draft which i am also rereading 
references the req-part draft, i.e. this one, on info relating to router 
partitioning.

- not related to the comments received but i re-read the entire draft. 
i find 2 of the definitions mildly confusing.

--Static Partitioning.  the last sentence makes it sound like the act of 
disconnecting a controller from vSE before partitioning is enough to 
render it a static partition.  i think the confusion goes away if the 
last phrase read ...can be reallocated therefore ...  i.e. replace the 'are'

--Implicit Reactive Notification:  it is not really some unspecified 
error - i expect the error to be a resource not available error. it is 
non reallocation specific error message.

- i did not see any microsoftisms.  then again i missed them before. 
anyone else?

-on page 5 last sentence of 1st para of Dynamic Partitioning: While the 
point is true, isn't it the obverse of what the comment was about.  I 
think he was arguing that partitions not involved in the reapportionment 
would not be affected.

-i am confused by your reference on starvation in Req. 4/8.  what are we 
trying to avoid starving, the PM or the controller/SE.  i read your 
answer as relating to starvation of the PM.

- and a trivial point, but i don't know if the header is legitimate. 
doesn't it need to be something like:
Internet Draft    the_name_of_the_draft    date
especially if we are sending it on to the RFC editor.

thanks for preparing an update so quickly.

a.