Fwd: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-mar-02.txt

Bert,

Ok this horse is dead,   16 is what is currently documented and that 
seems to be  an acceptable middle ground for all involved.


Please consider this WG consensus and that the WG drafts are back in 
the AD court for further processing.

thanks,

Ed

PS 16 is the number that thou should count and the number of the 
counting shall be 16.



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ina Minei <[email protected]>
> Date: January 12, 2004 9:33:09 AM PST
> To: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Tewg (E-mail)" <[email protected]>, "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), 
> ALABS" <[email protected]>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email protected]>
> Subject: RE: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-mar-02.txt
>
>
> 	Agreed. let's carry this forward. I think picking 4 for both
> vendor/experimental will eventually get us in trouble, since the 
> number is
> too small (we are likely to have 3 vendor-specific already, by 
> extending
> the existing models)  8, 16, 32 can all be made to work.
>
> 			Ina
>
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch) wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I think a BC Model ID space of 256 is comfortable and provides more 
>> than
>> enough codepoints. I also feel this is not a big issue and we just 
>> need
>> someone, like our chairs, to pick a size for the experimental/vendor
>> space. Any value among { 4, 8, 16, 32 } works for me.
>> I'll put that number in the next rev as soon as I hear a conclusion 
>> from
>> the chairs.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Francois
>>
>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: [email protected]
>>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ina Minei
>>>> Sent: vendredi 9 janvier 2004 19:07
>>>> 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,
>>>>
>>>> 	Nobody else seems to care about this issue, or at least they are
>>>> not expressing an opinion on the list, so this is why I was
>>>> carrying on
>>>> this email thread. I personally would like to see the issue
>>>> closed and
>>>> the draft moved forward.
>>>>
>>>> 	This issue is not such a big one, so let's not spend too much
>>>> time on it. So far there are two proposals: 3 numbers or 32 numbers.
>>>> I have explained why I think 3 is not enough, and you have
>>>> explained why
>>>> you think 32 is too much.
>>>>
>>>> 	Let's propose 16 and put it to vote on the list and be done with
>>>> it. Perhaps the WG chairs can help with this?
>>>>
>>>> 			Ina
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>