On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:
Proposal: All's Well on the ID Front (AI=1, II=1, Distributable via fee)
{{{
Amend Rule 2161 by removing bullets (c) and (e) from the list, and relettering
the rest accordingly, and amending bullet (b) to read
(b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural
number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14
digits) distinct from any ID number previously assigned to
an entity of that type, and ILLEGAL unless the number is
one greater than the greatest ID number so assigned.
[Defense of ignorance/impossibility should prevent this from being dumb]
What the heck's wrong with a recordkeepor deciding that some records are better
with the round number/turn number format? For example:
Fragment series 1:
1001 1002 1003
Fragment series 2:
2001 2002 2003
Etc.
As long as (c) stops the unreasonably large thing.
-G.
