[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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







Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: PGP signature