Re: 'monotonic increasing'
"Tom.Petch" <sisyphus@dial.pipex.com> Wed, 22 February 2006 21:54 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FC1wB-0004XI-OT; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:54:19 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FC1wA-0004XA-Cg for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:54:18 -0500
Received: from astro.systems.pipex.net ([62.241.163.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FC1w9-0004u8-3p for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:54:18 -0500
Received: from pc6 (1Cust246.tnt28.lnd4.gbr.da.uu.net [62.188.156.246]) by astro.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F4BDE00032E; Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:54:13 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <003101c637f1$f8e8f320$0601a8c0@pc6>
From: "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus@dial.pipex.com>
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>, Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <198A730C2044DE4A96749D13E167AD3792AA21@MOU1WNEXMB04.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com><43FAD851.26B0@xyzzy.claranet.de><771CA986-F3E9-42EF-8E0B-5ABE82A5F078@multicasttech.com> <43FB2A67.5A4F@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 21:49:43 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
Cc:
Subject: Re: 'monotonic increasing'
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "Tom.Petch" <sisyphus@dial.pipex.com>
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de> To: <ietf@ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:57 PM Subject: Re: 'monotonic increasing' > Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > > a RFC-2119 type RFC to define mathematical terms ? > > Maybe more like some glossaries (Internet, security, > I18N, ...), informational RFCs. But I think that's > unnecessary. There are online math. dictionaries, > authors can provide references for unlear terms, or > say what they mean. > > > Otherwise this thread is unlikely to do much to > > change the situation. > > It highlights why "clear" terms in RFC are good, > defined by reference or inline. In some groups > saying 'header' instead of 'header field', 'byte' > instead of 'octet', or 'charset' instead of IIRC > 'encoded character repertoire' is enough to start > a thread. And 'monotonic increasing' instead of > 'strictly (monotonic) increasing' is apparently a > similar issue. > Bye, Frank > What I see from this thread is that there are two common interpretations to the phrase 'monotonic increasing', either a sequence in which each number is greater than or equal to its predecessor, or one in which each number is strictly greater than its predecessor, with the former meaning having somewhat the greater support (at least amongst those with access to text books): which, of itself, makes it a risky term to use in a specification. I still think that it is sometimes used in RFC and I-D in a third sense, of a sequence of integers increasing by one each time, not a meaning anyone has supported. But only the editor can know what is really intended. So, the next time I see it used, perhaps in a Last Call of a pkix, kink or secsh I-D, I will seek further clarification. Tom Petch _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- RE: 'monotonic increasing' Gray, Eric
- RE: 'monotonic increasing' Yaakov Stein
- Re: 'monotonic increasing' Tom.Petch
- RE: 'monotonic increasing' Yaakov Stein
- RE: 'monotonic increasing' Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- RE: 'monotonic increasing' Gray, Eric
- Re: 'monotonic increasing' Frank Ellermann
- Re: 'monotonic increasing' Marshall Eubanks
- Re: 'monotonic increasing' Frank Ellermann
- Re: 'monotonic increasing' Tom.Petch