Sam Hartman wrote:
> When you combine increase with monotonically you rule out the
> possibility that it is equal.
Depending on the definition as discussed here. I'd have no
problem if somebody claims that trunc(x) or timestamp2date(t)
are "monotically increasing".
> I'd expect for an index
Hi -
>From: Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Feb 25, 2006 10:29 AM
>To: "Tom.Petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: iesg , ietf
>Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping,
>Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard
>
>When you combine increase with mono
Hi -
>From: "Tom.Petch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Feb 25, 2006 3:18 AM
>To: iesg , ietf
>Subject: Re: Last Call: 'Definitions of Managed Objects for Remote Ping,
>Traceroute, and Lookup Operations' to Proposed Standard
>
>I find the following unclear and would like to see it spelt out in
When you combine increase with monotonically you rule out the
possibility that it is equal.
However I'd expect for an index you want increasing by one, which is
more strict than monotonically increasing.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 12:18:26PM +0100, Tom.Petch wrote:
> I find the following unclear and would like to see it spelt out in detail
>
> "traceRouteHopsHopIndex
>
>MUST start at 1 and increase monotonically."
>
> Recent discussions on the ietf main list identified two meanings for
I find the following unclear and would like to see it spelt out in detail
"traceRouteHopsHopIndex
MUST start at 1 and increase monotonically."
Recent discussions on the ietf main list identified two meanings for
'monotonically' - a sequence where each value is greater than or equal to
--On 24. februar 2006 15:25 -0500 "Gray, Eric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On the positive side, seeing yourself listed toward the
top can make you think about the value of letting other people
have a chance to say something. Especially if you're - like -
third from the top... :-)
