On 2013-04-11 00:09, Gunnar Hellstrom wrote:
I remember that there was a discussion on the risk for wrap-over in
handling seq. Is the wording now in line with the outcome of the
discussion?
Was it acceptable as it is now, with no mentioning about the risk for
wrap-around when incrementing seq. Maybe all implementors should be
wise enough to handle wrap around properly. Or did the discussion end
up with the conclusion that a requirement should be inserted about
usual handling of the counter wrapping around?
I found it.
It was handled in a mail of July 27, 2012, where you said about text
about the initial value on SEQ for section 4.2.1:
I already say "Senders MAY limit the size of the new starting seq
value, to keep <rtt/> compact while allowing plenty of incrementing
room without overflow." which already provides the umbrella for this.
I found no further change on this, so I think the sentence in" " above
should be in section 4.2.1
Gunnar
