Re: ISSUE: Checkgroups control messages
"Charles Lindsey" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.usenet.format |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In <[email protected]> Thorfinn <[email protected]> writes: >On 23 Sep 2008, at 11:49, Russ Allbery wrote: >> >> Thorfinn <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> 640kb should be enough for anyone. Um. :-) >>> >>> That is, yes, 32 bit unsigned integer is better, not 15 bit. >> >> Just to clarify, the current draft has no limit at all. I think >> it's safe >> and reasonable to add a limit of 2^32 - 1, but I'm always nervous >> about >> adding limits on values because you never know when you might want >> them to >> be larger later. >> >> On the other hand, Julien has a good point that implementers aren't >> going >> to add a bigint implementation just to check sequence numbers. >*nod* 64 bit is becoming fairly prevalent, and that should certainly >be enough. >That said - the DNS world is pretty used to using a 32 bit integer >circle for comparison. >Looking at the current USEPRO text... *ponder* Serial number MUST >increase. That is definitely a problem - you certainly can run out of >32 bit integer. It's not all that likely, but it's certainly possible. Well, it has taken 30 years for a few heavily populated groups to come within sight of overflowing the 32-bit article numbers, and the number of checkgroups messages sent is many orders of magnitude less than what such groups have seen. So I think 32 bits is fine. People still regard 32 bits as the 'normal' length of an integer, even though modern hardware is able to cope with 64bit, especially for addresses. -- 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: [email protected] 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