Re: Alternate CLF syntax proposal

[Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

_______________________________________________
Sipping mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipping
This list is for NEW development of the application of SIP
Use sip-implementors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for questions on current sip
Use sip@xxxxxxxx for new developments of core SIP