Re: ISSUE: Checkgroups control messages
Thorfinn <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.usenet.format |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 22 Sep 2008, at 19:33, Russ Allbery wrote: > > "Charles Lindsey" <[email protected]> writes: >> Julien ÉLIE <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> I do not think it wise to limit this number to 32768 because one >>> could >>> not use DNS serial numbers (which are practical). 2^31=2147483648 >>> would be better, at least. It could be said that implementations >>> should except <chksernr> arguments to be a 32-bit integer. And that >>> the (unsigned) integer should be less than 2^32. > >> Yes, I agree that any number expressed in 32 bit would be better. Can >> Russ quietly slip it in? > > It seems like a reasonable change to me, but I'd like to get more > opinions > from the working group just to be sure. 640kb should be enough for anyone. Um. :-) That is, yes, 32 bit unsigned integer is better, not 15 bit. -- <a href="http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn/">[email protected]</a> The world is coming to an end. Please log off. -- BSD fortune file