Re: TCP/IP Terms

To: Robert Elz <kre at munnari.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: TCP/IP Terms
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 12:25:03 -0700
Cc: ietf at ietf.org
In-reply-to: <16183.1034008712@munnari.OZ.AU>
References: <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E352@server2000> <2B81403386729140A3A899A8B39B046405E352@server2000>
Sender: owner-ietf at ietf.org

At 11:38 PM 10/7/2002 +0700, Robert Elz wrote:

Attempting to give these things absolute numbers, other than for ease of
reference in some particular context is lunacy.

Not that I disagree with your primary point, it is worth noting that there is some basis for hovering about 7, for an *overall* model.

It's that memory limit thing (7, plus or minus 2.) The plus or minus is statistical, so if you want to make sure that people really have no trouble grokking the total set, 5 is a better choice.

d/


Dave Crocker <mailto:dave at tribalwise.com>
TribalWise, Inc. <http://www.tribalwise.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850

Follow-Ups:
- Re: TCP/IP Terms
  - From: John C Klensin
- RE: TCP/IP Terms
  - From: Bill Strahm

References:
- RE: TCP/IP Terms
  - From: Michel Py
- Re: TCP/IP Terms
  - From: Robert Elz

Prev by Date: DHCP query/reply using IP directed-broadcast address
Next by Date: RE: TCP/IP Terms
Previous by thread: Re: TCP/IP Terms
Next by thread: RE: TCP/IP Terms
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

Re: TCP/IP Terms

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.