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

From: Dimitry Haskin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 13:20:59 -0400

Francois and all,

> The drafts already state that when LOM are not used it means they are
> set to 1.
> I had put the two sets of formulas with/without LOM because LOM is
> purely an optional mechanism [ and frankly I don't expect it 
> to be used
> that often considering how much you can achieve with Link overbooking
> and LSP overbooking] so I thought it would be useful to state the
> formulas without LOM . 
> Note that while the CAC formulas are pretty much the same with/without
> LOM (with simple substitution of "reserved" by "normalised") the
> formulas for computing Unreserved BW do get less intuitive 
> with LOM than
> without.
> 

I agree that there is not much practical use for LOM, if any. Can someone
define the real need for it? If not, wouldn't it be beneficial to remove it
from the current -proto spec? IMO, it would make spec less confusing and
easier to conceptualize. If someone ever finds a real rather than
theoretical need for LOM, it always can be handled as an extension in a
different spec. I think making the base spec as simple as possible by
removing concepts that presently don't appear to have any practical value is
of a great importance.

Regards,
  Dimitry