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

OK, back on my plate

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Kern [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: zaterdag 14 februari 2004 0:16
> To: Bert Wijnen
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>