futures (Re: [net2-wg] Packet interface)

[Omprakash Gnawali]

> I also think it's pretty clear that having the concept of futures (more
> than one to send) meets the requirement of "necessary." In the light of
> the principle, one way to rephrase your question is to ask:
> 
> "Is a futures bit, rather than a counter, sufficient?"
> 

Ironically, one bit future can express the fact that you have infinite
packets to send but a finite counter based futures can not do that in
a natural way. When nodes are wall powered (in-door permanent
deployments, for example) and are running applications that constantly
sample the environment, this is not a far-fetched possibility.

It is still possible to use finite futures that increments every so
many cycles of next calls, but that still does not seem "natural".