Re: [CCAMP] AD review of draft-ietf-ccamp-assoc-ext

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

> > So I'd suggest something like:
> > "Once an association is identified, resources MUST be considered as
> > shared across the identified sessions by the admission control
> > function. Since the admission control function is outside the scope
> > of RSVP, we observe that how resource sharing is actually reflected
> > may vary according to specific implementations (e.g. depending on the
> > specific admission control and resource management algorithm, or on
> > how local policy is taken into account). "
> >
> > A SHOULD instead of a MUST can work for me to.
> >
> > Would that be acceptable?
> 
> WFM
> 
> Adrian are okay with this language?

I can live with it.

It is fabulously woolly :-)
"MUST be considered as shared, but might not actually be shared"

I think that you are actually saying "MUST be made available to be shared across
the identified sessions, but admission control..."

Anyway, pick some words and go for it.

A