RE: I-D ACTION:draft-kompella-tewg-bw-acct-00.txt

["Sudhakar Ganti" <sganti@tropicnetworks.com>]

Hi Kireeti,

A few more comments on the draft:

1) First, I am surprised to see a draft describing
   bandwidth accounting (or CACing).Thought these 
   are internal to a node, implementation specific
   and should not be influenced by standards.
2) The term "priority" is kind of overloaded in 
   Section 7.1. If priority is referring to a service
   class (or a PSC as in Diffserv), then please
   change the name appropriately. Or are you inferring
   preemption priority is one-to-one mapped to the service
   class? I am assuming that is not the case.
3) I thought Class type is only useful in reducing the
   flooding information of IGP protocols and one needs
   per-class bandwidth accounting anyway. For example
   you can use different CAC parameters for the classes
   belonging to the same Class-type, but consume bandwidth
   from same aggregated pool. Therefore Class Type band
   width pool may not necessarily mean that we don't 
   need per-class bandwidth accounting.
4) Is there any reason why you did not discuss FA-LSPs or
   hierarchical tunnels, corresponding bandwidth accounting,
   bandwidth accounting of LSPs riding on the tunnels and
   overbooking?

-Sudhakar