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 you want increasing by one, which is
> more strict than monotonically increasing.
Maybe the author allows to skip some hops (indices) - I didn't
look into the draft. Simply saying "strictly" with or without
"monotically" might be better.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf