To:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
cc:
"'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" <brunner@nic-naa.net>, "'Damaraju, Ayesha'" <ayesha.damaraju@neustar.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Wed, 16 May 2001 18:01:53 -0400
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Wed, 16 May 2001 17:34:32 EDT." <DF737E620579D411A8E400D0B77E671D01877EEB@regdom-ex01.prod.netsol.com>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: Epp - Contacts
Scott, As a mathematician, the distinction between "two" and "many" seems a bit mystical, but the real issue here is non-uniqueness, ordering, necessity, consequence, and then any (finite) number that makes consensus. What's your favorite number between 1 and card(integers)? I'm partial to 4, though 7 works for me too. Dualists usually go for 2. Christians for 3. ... and cognitive types remind us that 7 is about as much as a mind can hold. The nice thing about integers is that there are so many to choose from. What Ayesha was fishing for was a case against, not an assertion of non-necessity, which we didn't apply to the first (and therefore simple, elegant, unique, and potentially wrong) instance of numerous contact elements. Anyone got a case against? A case for necessity of uniqueness? Impossiblity (or difficulty) of ordering? Lacking that, its just a matter of taste. Eric