IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Sipping] Alternate CLF syntax proposal

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 15 April 2009 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sipping@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804483A6B52 for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.085
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.085 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.486, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_OEM_OBFU=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hdNCXXZNayXl for <sipping@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5062F3A6868 for <sipping@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.3.231] (vicuna-alt.estacado.net [75.53.54.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n3FFGEsE069294 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:16:14 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <49E5FA3E.2020804@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:16:14 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Postbox 1.0b10 (Macintosh/2009032714)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Theo Zourzouvillys <theo@crazygreek.co.uk>
References: <49CAE21C.5060309@nostrum.com> <c164605b0903260836p45a8bd8eg9ad50f670ef82302@mail.gmail.com> <167dfb9b0903290326t519e6df8naacdb396a259f8f2@mail.gmail.com> <49CFCD7B.5020304@iptel.org> <167dfb9b0903291950s17559a41s6a8ab01cee1e3650@mail.gmail.com> <E6C2E8958BA59A4FB960963D475F7AC31503229BAE@mail> <167dfb9b0903311033k4f26ac97gdca11986d074b9ce@mail.gmail.com> <49E5F865.10304@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <49E5F865.10304@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060101050703070809040809"
Received-SPF: pass (nostrum.com: 75.53.54.121 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: Jason Fischl <jason.fischl@gmail.com>, sipping WG <sipping@ietf.org>, "draft-gurbani-sipping-clf@tools.ietf.org" <draft-gurbani-sipping-clf@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Sipping] Alternate CLF syntax proposal
X-BeenThere: sipping@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "SIPPING Working Group \(applications of SIP\)" <sipping.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sipping>
List-Post: <mailto:sipping@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping>, <mailto:sipping-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 15:15:11 -0000

Adam Roach wrote:
>
> Instead of taking the time to find records of interest from o(m) to 
> o(0.3m), you've INCREASED it to o(n), where n >> m.


Sorry... that should have been o(0.03m), not o(0.3m).

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email