> > And, based on your discussions, should we change back the term "EntryID" > to "Sequence"? It seems will be helpful in some situations. > > That would be my suggestion. It's why I suggested waiting on resolution > of this issue before recommending text changes. > > Having come to conclusion that sequence is relevant due to the behavior of > the overload bit, I have further thoughts on the default deny behavior that > is the last lingering issue. I'll try to propose some text later today. >
It is actually pretty amazing that no other members of two WGs have an opinion on complexity and forced suboptimality of implementations which is inherently not avoidable by keeping overload bit and as a result of it requires sequence numbers to remain in this spec. Or maybe no one really cares any more .... :) Cheers, Robert
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
