On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Chris M. Lonvick wrote:
> 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?
>
Then you would have to arm the timestamp with an additional sequence
number of any kind to make it unique. Where is the difference?
Every message going out of the machine gets the next sequence number. So
it would be 12346, saying that 12345 was repeated 4 times.
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
Volker
