Re: RSVP request

[Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>]

Bert,

> So my question would be if (and if so how) this relates
> to the assignment we already made fro ATM:
>
>
>   227  ATM_SERVICECLASS                       [RFC3496]
>
>        Class Types or C-Types:
>
>          1 ATM Service class                  [RFC3496]
>

It certainly would be nice if a C-Type of the existing Class could
be used, but that seems unlikely because one is intra-ATM and one is for
ATM-MPLS interworking (fun).  But that would be a question to ask, if we had
some say, which I think we don't.  

Unfortunately the RSVP change document has turned out to be very sloppily written
and can't be Last Called as is (some of you may recall I said I was planning
to Last Call this document imminently and close the door on FCFS).  It has too
many bloopers - I think only Kireeti, its author, read it and then only once :).

Also, it alters to making things very tight - there will be just 4 Classes 
free to non-standards track for the whole future - I think this is too 
unfriendly to our peers.   

To Thomas's question:  the RSVP change document does have an Expert Reviewer who helps
consider non-standards track requests, and I too have heard Bob Braden say he would like
not to be the Expert Reviewer anymore.  We could consider asking some new folks, such as
Jukka Manner, after checking with Bob if he really meant it, and/or making him the backup.

Allison