Re: Fwd: ISSUE: Checkgroups control messages

[Russ Allbery <rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Charles Lindsey" <chl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Julien ÉLIE <julien@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> I do not think it wise to limit this number to 32768 because one could
>> not use DNS serial numbers (which are practical).  2^31=2147483648
>> would be better, at least.  It could be said that implementations
>> should except <chksernr> arguments to be a 32-bit integer.  And that
>> the (unsigned) integer should be less than 2^32.

> Yes, I agree that any number expressed in 32 bit would be better. Can
> Russ quietly slip it in?

It seems like a reasonable change to me, but I'd like to get more opinions
from the working group just to be sure.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>