Re: ISSUE: Checkgroups control messages

[Thorfinn <thorfinn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 22 Sep 2008, at 19:33, Russ Allbery wrote:

> "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.


640kb should be enough for anyone. Um. :-)

That is, yes, 32 bit unsigned integer is better, not 15 bit.

--
<a href="http://tertius.net.au/~thorfinn/";>thorfinn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</a>
The world is coming to an end.  Please log off.  -- BSD fortune file