Re: [bazsi@balabit.hu: ADMIN request]

[Chris M. Lonvick]

At 05:23 PM 10/20/99 +0200, Andreas Siegert wrote:
 >Quoting Volker Wiegand ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 04:19:50PM 
 >+0200:
 >> The clever way out of this might be the mandatory inclusion of a sequence
 >> number and reference to this number in the repeat message.
 >
 >That of course is something we should have!

Would it make more sense to just reference the timestamp rather than adding 
a sequence field to the protocol?  If we add a sequence number, then we may
get into litle logic games such as:
- An event happened and a message was sent with sequence number 12345,
- The same event happened four additional times within a very short time.
Will the message stating that be given sequence number 12346, 12349, or
12350?  What will be the sequence number given to the next message?

Thanks,
Chris