RE: Reflecting new-MAM/SAM definition in diff-te drafts

Francois, All,

> I've been using "Reserved" and "Normalised" as per their definitions in
> the proto draft, the RDM draft and the MAM draft.
> 
> Quoting from these drafts:
> 
> ==================================
> - "Reserved(CTc)": For a given Class-Type CTc ( 0 <= c <= MaxCT ) ,let
> us define "Reserved(CTc)" as the sum of the bandwidth reserved by all
> established LSPs which belong to CTc. 
> - Normalised(CTc) : let us define "Normalised(CTc)" as
> "Reserved(CTc)/LOM(c)", where LOM (c) is the Local Overbooking
> Multiplier for CTc defined in [DSTE-PROTO].
> =====================================
> 
> What that means is that "Reserved(CTc)" does factor in the overbooking
> method which is referred to as "LSP/link size overbooking" method and is
> the overbooking method commonly used in TE networks. However, it does
> NOT factor in the optional "Local Overbooking Multiplier" method.
> 
> "Normalised(CTc)"  factors-in both the "LSP/link size overbooking" and
> the optional "Local Overbooking Multiplier" method.

Thank you for reviewing this.  

I had not appreciated that 'Reserved(CTc)' is actually a normalized quantity, normalized by the 'LSP/link size overbooking multiplier' (LSOM).

Just to further clarify, in terms of the actual bandwidth requested, I suppose this relationship must hold:

Reserved(CTc) = Bandwidth-Requested(CTc)/LSOM

where

Bandwidth-Requested(CTc): For a given Class-Type CTc ( 0 <= c <= MaxCT ), define "Bandwidth-Requested(CTc)" as the sum of the bandwidth requested by all established LSPs which belong to CTc. 

Is that correct?  If so, then 'Reserved(CTc)' is also a 'normalized' quantity, but this time it is normalized by the LSOM, right?

Thanks for the clarifications,
Jerry