RE: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-mar-02.txt
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]> Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:09:59 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.tewg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B155033D3A15@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com> |
Not sure why some people think (or that is how I perceive your last email) that an AD has any more weight than other WG members. I have made my opinion clear that I think that 32 is far too much. I have asked WG chairs to check this also. It is best if WG chairs take initiative to drive resolution of these questions. Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Ina Minei [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: vrijdag 9 januari 2004 1:19 > To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) > Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Tewg (E-mail) > Subject: RE: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-mar-02.txt > > > > Bert, > > So can we just agree on 32 "experimental/vendor private" > numbers starting at 255 and down? > > Thank you, > > Ina > > On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Ina Minei wrote: > > > > > > > Bert, > > > > I think we both agree :). and in the end it all boils down to > > experimental vs vendor-private. What I am thinking of > > is vendor-private numbers, and what you are thinking of is > experimental. > > We are both right. How we decide to solve it is a different issue. > > > > We can either: 1) allocate two spaces, one for experimental and > > one for vendor-private. In that case, 3 should be enough > for experimental, > > but as for vendor-private more than 3 would be required, > for the reason I > > was mentioning in the original mail or 2) allocate one > bigger space for > > both experimental and vendor-private. I prefer (2). > > > > Let's just pick one of the options, and carry it forward. Let me > > know what you prefer. > > > > Ina > > >