---- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas(_at_)pfrc(_dot_)org>
To: "t.p." <daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:38 PM
Tom,
Thanks for the feedback.
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:55:07PM +0100, t.p. wrote:
I would prefer 'first' to 'zeroth' - I find the latter somewhat
obscure - and I would prefer the title to be more specific,
The intention is to strongly imply "code point zero". While we don't
have
many things that start counting from one (BITS in SMIv2 being a
counter
example, iirc.) the intention is definitley not to reserve the first
thing
if it's non-zero.
Jeff
I was unclear. I agree that we should not be reserving 'one' if it is
the first - rather, I was suggesting that in the title, and probably in
the Abstract, 'first' would be more readily understood than 'zeroth'
(which sounds like the last letter of an little-known Eastern
language:-). Then in the Introduction, spell out that it is zero that
is meant by first.
Tom Petch
This probably shows a bit of prejudice to C and similar language
constructs,
but there you have it.
slotting in
the word 'numeric' after IETF (or should that be IANA?) since
textual
registries can be ordered and have a first and last but the
considerations here would not apply.
I'll look at wedging in numeric somewhere in there. The name is
already
getting to be a bit long.
IANA was specifically not included in the text since some code point
registries may exist solely within a document for some length of its
lifetime. I was also suggested to consider dropping "IETF" since the
practice is still useful outside of IETF documents, but other SDOs get
cranky if you start recommending what they should do. :-)
-- Jeff