chl at clerew.man.ac.uk
Wed Aug 10 03:56:34 PDT 2005
In <42F8C69B.6070505 at oceana.com> Ken Murchison <ken at oceana.com> writes:
>I proposed wording that made support for 2^32-1 a MUST, and support for
>2^64-1 a SHOULD.
No, I think we should leave the 64 bit issue alone for now. If we say
SHOULD support, then we have effectively made the decision that 64 bits
will be the eventual fix.
My personal view is that a wrap around solution would be best long term
(and I think we have discussed enough to see that such a scheme would be
possible, but obviously not to the extent that we can define it now). So I
don't want to make any decision now that would make it difficult later.
Most systems are safe for several years. It is only Steve's unusual scheme
which might fail after 2 years, and I don't think we should be forced into
a premature decision just because of that.
I would have no problem if we want to limit it to 31 bits for now, with a
SHOULD support 32 (i.e. SHOULD use unsigned int).
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
More information about the ietf-nntp