11 Sep
2012
11 Sep
'12
7:52 a.m.
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 05:51:53 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
Anything written in RFC1796 should be ignored, because RFC1796, an informational, not standard track, RFC, states so.
On the other hand, if you're relying on the fact that 1796 is informational in order to ignore it, then you're following its guidance even though it's not a standard. Insisting on being pedantic on its status will merely leave you wondering who shaves the barber.
Or, is it time to retract your silliness?
Standard or not, we have Christian Huitema, John Postel, and Steve Crocker telling you something about RFCs and how they actually work. Which is more likely, that all 3 of them were wrong, or that you're the one that's confused?