Thanks Éric. L.
> On 1 Jun 2022, at 16:07, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> wrote: > > And John is an actual English speaker, so, I trust him on this one __ > > -éric > > -----Original Message----- > From: Luigi Iannone <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 16:03 > To: John Scudder <[email protected]> > Cc: Eric Vyncke <[email protected]>, The IESG <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-11: (with > COMMENT) > > Hi John, > >> On 1 Jun 2022, at 15:55, John Scudder <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I hate to disagree, but: >> >>> On May 31, 2022, at 3:54 AM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> s/MUST consist in an increment by one the older/MUST consist in an >>> increment by >>> one of the older/ ? Moreover, 'increment' is usually understood as 'add 1' >>> so >>> no need to add 'by one' in the sentence >> >> I think “by one” was more unambiguous even the sentence doesn’t scan as >> prettily. Although in computing it’s true that “increment” without any >> qualification does generally imply one, isn’t it even better to be explicit? >> Certainly the dictionary definition of “increment” doesn’t include “by one”. >> In this particular case, the “by one” is important since it has implications >> on how fast the (very small) version number space could wrap. >> >> My own preference would be to re-introduce “by one” or similar, when/if >> doing another version. > > Is just a “when” ;-) there will be another revision for sure > > As for your comment, I understand your point, it does not harm to be > “pedantic” and keep the “by one”. > > Thanks > > Ciao > > L. > > > >> >> $0.02, >> >> —John > > _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
