--L6iaP+gRLNZHKoI4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 05:52:09PM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> On Monday,  6 October 2003 at  8:18:09 +1000, Luke Mewburn wrote:
> > Whilst I know the benefit in providing namespace for "local" devices,
> > if we're trying to restrict ourselves to 0..255, why not ensure that
> > NetBSD has more of that namespace.
> >
> > E.g:
> > 	144-159		local-use (including vendor)
> > 	160-255		NetBSD MI
> >
> > or even (my preferred):
> > 	144-239		NetBSD MI (allocate from lowest first)
> > 	240-255		Local/vendor (allocate top down)
> >
> > The latter means that if we find a compelling reason (i.e, local users
> > or vendors beg for more than 16 "private-use" majors :), we can revise
> > the namespace in the future without too many problems?
>=20
> OK, this seems to be the last message on the subject.  I'm currently
> in the position of wanting to allocate an MI major number to Vinum.
> Which one do I choose?  144?  160?  192?  240?  256?

Unfortunately we haven't reached concensus yet. :-(

I like Luke's less-prefered choice of having local ones 144-159 and=20
having MI ones from 160 on up. Mainly as we will keep adding devices over=
=20
time, and eventually we will get past 256. This division leaves it:

	< 140	Old-style
    140 - 159	Local/distribution specific
    160 +	New-style.

Take care,

Bill

--L6iaP+gRLNZHKoI4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQE/huvnWz+3JHUci9cRAgcZAKCYVk0VixpngY+Cdh5Qv3ijoBMcXgCfdsPm
8RAKRs4PlnbEHiqH4qWjBbs=
=MEWs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--L6iaP+gRLNZHKoI4--