I reviewed this draft and appreciate the effort that went into the document.  I did not find any major issues with this draft and only a few minor issues/nits.


===========================
Minor 

Section 1
- Is the TE model an Abstract TE model (vs underlay or overlay) as per RFC8795?  If so can you elaborate on that?

Section 2.2
For some VN members of a VN, the customers are allowed to configure the actual path (i.e., detailed virtual nodes and virtual links) over the VN/abstract topology agreed mutually between CNC and MDSC prior to or a topology created by the MDSC as part of VN instantiation.
- Please rewrite this sentence, "MDSC prior to or a topology", I could not parse the intended meaning.

Section 2.2
- Please provide a definition for S1-S11. I believe they're abstract nodes as defined in an abstract TE model as per RFC8795.

============================
Nits

Section 4.3.1
- Is there a reason for the difference in names for path-affinities-values vs path-affinity-names - could/should you make affinity names consistent? if so please do.

- Please replace all MSDC with MDSC