> -Original Message-
> From: Chad Giffin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 10:53 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: IETF
> Subject: RE: RNET: Random Network Endpoint Technology
>
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: RNET: Ra
>Make time_t 64 bits wide. ...
>What do you think?
The basic definition of time_t is in the ANSI/ISO C standards, which
say it's an arithmetic type but leave the details to the
implementation. POSIX further defines it to be an integer number of
seconds since the 1970 epoch, with the implementati
Hi -
> From: "Chad Giffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "IETF"
> Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 11:38 AM
> Subject: 64bit time_t
...
> What do you think?
...
This has been addressed before.
See ITU Rec. X.743 http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.743/en
for one solution.
Randy
Chad Giffin wrote:
Make time_t 64 bits wide. Make the most significant bit (bit 63) a
sign bit. Make the next 50 significant bits store the number of
seconds elapsed since January 1st 2000 GMT. The last 13 bits be of
fractions of a second.
What do you think?
Write up an Internet-Draft
I know this is not the proper forum for this message. I lack sufficient
contacts to send this idea to. So I provide it to you here. There are /so/
many people (influential and otherwise) on this list that seeding this proposal
here seems like the best way to do it. I apologize now if you fe
People seem to think nobody wants this protocol. This is untrue.
The problem is showing support for it.
If someone shows support for it, they are immediately suspected of possible
wrong doing for they support anonymity.
The solution is that we all talk about it openly and leave those who are
> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:22:11 -0400
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RNET: Randon Network Endpoint Technology
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Chad,
>
> I doubt that you will receive much useful feedback from IETF members.
Why would you say this? This is a propos
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: RNET: Randon Network Endpoint Technology
> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:57:18 -0700
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Chad Giffin
>> Sent: Thursday,
At Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:31:03 +0100,
Lawrence Conroy wrote:
>
> Hi Eric, folks,
> [renamed for this specific point, and CC list trimmed]
>
> I am puzzled by this point in your review.
> I suspect that other potential authors will be too.
> To me, the last sentence is exactly right:
> the SHOULD
Hi Eric, folks,
[renamed for this specific point, and CC list trimmed]
I am puzzled by this point in your review.
I suspect that other potential authors will be too.
To me, the last sentence is exactly right:
the SHOULD means "do this unless...",
and the last phrase covers the "unless".
I had r
10 matches
Mail list logo
