Few editorial comments/questions: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-00

["Choudhury, Sanjaya" <Sanjaya.Choudhury@marconi.com>]

Hi! Here are few editorial comments/ questions related
to the draft draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-proto-00.

1. It will be nice to use the words MUST/SHOULD/
   MAY etc to clearly indicate implementation 
   requirements expected from the vendors.

2. [Section 2, Class-Type definition] 
   DS-TE-REQTS mentions "By definition each CT is 
   assigned to a BC or a set of BC". If you think 
   this statement will contribute to the clarity,
   it may not be bad idea to refer to it in this 
   section.

3. [Section 2, TE-Class definition]
   Before the statement "A pair of....", it may be
   helpful, to add a conceptual definition of 
   TE-Class. 
 
   (ex: The TE-Class associated with a LSP, 
   identifies the BCs that must be applied to it,
   along with the relative importance of the LSP
   from the bandwidth allocation prospective.
   --just an idea)
  
4. [Section 2: TE-Class definition]
   From the definition can we assume the following:
     (a) If a request to setup a LSP with a setup 
         priority p and Class-Type  c arrives at a 
         transit LSR, it should be REJECTED, if  p 
         does not appear in any of the  <c, --> pairs
         defining the TE-Class map.  TRUE/FALSE

     (b) If a request to setup a LSP with a Class-Type
         c arrives at a transit LSR, it should be REJECTED,
         if c does not appear in any of the pairs defining
         the TE-Class TRUE/FALSE
         [May be this should be clarified some where in
         the text]
5. [General -Question]
   Are the following assumptions correct ?
    a. BCO  MUST be defined in ALL the LSRs in the domain
    b. CT0  MUST be defined in ALL the LSRs in the domain
    c. TE-Class[0] MUST be defined in ALL the LSRs in the
       domain.
6. [Section 3.1.2] 
   Do you think the discussion related to "LSP Size Overbooking"
   adds any thing to the section ? 

7. [Section 3.1.2 6th para However..]
   "..., the overbooking ration already enforced by the "LSP
   Size overbooking" method. "
   Is this correct ? 

8. [Section 3.1.2]
   I think, certain conditions MUST be satisfied while
   configuring the local multiplier. For example 
    if BCi < BC j, then BCi * LOMi < BCj * LOMj
   Am I correct ?

9. [Section 3.2.1, last statement]
   can we infer the following from the last statement 
   of this section ?
   [ALL the LSRs in the domain must have the same TE
    -Class mapping]
   a. All the LSRs in the domain MUST support same 
      set of CTs.
   b. If using the Russian Doll Model, All the LSRs in
      the domain MUST be same AND MUST be consecutive.

10. [Section 4.2]
    TE-Class index in a domain must be consecutive 
    (0,1,2,3 and not 0,1,5)?