I am indifferent on this issue (the bit inversion), but so
far only Jorge has spoken up. I opted for this detail during
implementation in order to preserve existing semantics, even
if those semantics are not commonly used. This was the
conservative choice, driven in part because I didn't want the
proposal to be held up by the other side saying "this is
confusing because it changes how sequence numbers work! it
used to count up but now it counts down!"
I can see both sides and as I said I'm indifferent, so I went
with the conservative choice of not messing with existing
semantics. However if there is strong preferences from
_multiple_ people on this matter it is not too late to change.
If anyone feels strongly about this, please speak up.