Re: [lisp] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-11: (with COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

And John is an actual English speaker, so, I trust him on this one __

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Luigi Iannone <[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 1 June 2022 at 16:03
To: John Scudder <[e-mail]>
Cc: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>, The IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, Padma Pillay-Esnault <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lisp-6834bis-11: (with COMMENT)

    Hi John,

    > On 1 Jun 2022, at 15:55, John Scudder <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > 
    > I hate to disagree, but:
    > 
    >> On May 31, 2022, at 3:54 AM, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> 
    >> s/MUST consist in an increment by one the older/MUST consist in an increment by
    >> one of the older/ ? Moreover, 'increment' is usually understood as 'add 1' so
    >> no need to add 'by one' in the sentence
    > 
    > I think “by one” was more unambiguous even the sentence doesn’t scan as prettily. Although in computing it’s true that “increment” without any qualification does generally imply one, isn’t it even better to be explicit? Certainly the dictionary definition of “increment” doesn’t include “by one”. In this particular case, the “by one” is important since it has implications on how fast the (very small) version number space could wrap.
    > 
    > My own preference would be to re-introduce “by one” or similar, when/if doing another version.

    Is just a “when” ;-) there will be another revision for sure 

    As for your comment, I understand your point, it does not harm to be “pedantic” and keep the “by one”.

    Thanks 

    Ciao

    L.



    > 
    > $0.02,
    > 
    > —John