--On Sunday, 18 November, 2007 18:37 -0600 Dave Crocker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John C Klensin wrote:
>> "Four" is in the spec because it is a plausible compromise
>> without getting bogged down in the details of multiple
>> countries and cultures and because, if one does get that
>> involved, one will often come up with four anyway.
>
> As I recall, there was also an empirical basis for this, based
> on thinking about the notification "spikes" that were observed
> over some years.
>
> For obvious and reasonable reasons, one can strongly argue for
> the time-out to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and even 10 days. The
> latter are too long for effectiveness and the first few cause
> too many false notices.
>
> That leaves, perhaps, 3, 4 and 5 to debate about and 4 does
> jump out as a reasonable compromise, doesn't it?
Exactly.
john
