[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: AD evaluation: draft-ietf-tewg-diff-te-mar-02.txt
OK, back on my plate
Thanks,
Bert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Kern [mailto:ejk@tech.org]
> Sent: zaterdag 14 februari 2004 0:16
> To: Bert Wijnen
> Cc: te-wg@ops.ietf.org
> 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 <ina@juniper.net>
> > Date: January 12, 2004 9:33:09 AM PST
> > To: "Francois Le Faucheur (flefauch)" <flefauch@cisco.com>
> > Cc: "Tewg (E-mail)" <te-wg@ops.ietf.org>, "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry),
> > ALABS" <gash@att.com>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> > 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: 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>