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

[Ina Minei <ina@juniper.net>]

	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: owner-te-wg@ops.ietf.org
> >> [mailto:owner-te-wg@ops.ietf.org] 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:ina@juniper.net]
> >> > > 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
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>