RE: draft-ash-mpls-dste-bcmodel-max-alloc-resv -> WG document?

Sanjay,

Thanks for your comments, please see responses below.

Thanks,
Jerry

> Technical (Scope):
> (i) The aim here is to defined a BC Model and not a 
> DSTE-Solution. 

There is no intent to change the DSTE solution.  MAR is an extension of MAM which fits completely within the existing DSTE solution, as does MAM (and RDM).

> i.e define the BC Model as per the DSTE requirement document: 
> (a) the maximum number of Bandwidth Constraints

I think it already does that, e.g., in Section 2 it says "Up to 8 Bandwidth Constraints (MaxBC = 8) are supported and they are referred to as BCb, 0 <= b <= MaxBC-1 = 7."  

> (b) which CTs each Bandwidth Constraint applies to and how

OK, I'll clarify further along the lines of your suggestion.
 
> The draft in its present form, goes way beyond the scope.
> For example: 
> The proposed solution (a) expects modifications to the 
> DSTE Solution 

As I said above, MAR fits completely within the existing DSTE solution, no extension is intended or proposed.

> (ii) introduces CT priority concept that
> is not in DSTE-requirement

Priority, as discussed in the I-D, fits within the existing DSTE solution, and uses setup/holding priority capabilities as is.  This will be clarified in the next revision.

> Editorial: 
> (i) Personally, I think this draft needs some editorial 
> changes to state the solution more clearly [explicitly 
> and succinctly state the rules/necessary configurations/
> protocol extensions etc.]

OK.  I'll clarify further along the lines of your suggestions.

> (ii) The draft also needs to define the term it uses 
> precisely (and use them consistently]
> Example: "bandwidth-in-progress","bandwidth-in-use", 
> 	   "reserved-bandwidth", "BWalloc" ... ...

OK.  I'll include more definitions in Section 2.

> (iii) Separate specification from the examples

I think these are mostly separate already.  Section 3 contains the specification, Section 4 contains the examples (ANNEX A contains the analysis).