----- Original Message -----
From: "David Brodbeck" <DavidB@???>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg A. Woods [mailto:woods@most.weird.com]
>
> > The language you quote above is invalid, as is the self-contradictory
> > language of RFC 1123 5.2.5. No RFC is perfect, and some are clearly
> > worse than others at stepping beyond the bounds of simply specifying
> > protocols.
>
> So essentially, you criticize other people for not following the RFCs, but
> you yourself violate them at will because any language you disagree with
is
> "invalid". Thanks for clearing that up.
>
I agree that Greg clarified his position, but not in the quote snippet
above.
He went on to say:
> > The first rule in reading a protocol specification is to remember that a
> > protocol specification "MUST" not dictate policy -- i.e. it must not
> > dictate how and when the protocol is to be used! ;-)
Which explains his criteria for judging the validity of a particular piece
of
RFC rather clearly, and intelligently. I think we all would do well to
consider so carefully when and how we choose to violate the letter of
various RFC's. Because we all do, intentionally or otherwise, at one
time or another.
Now that we have heard Greg's criteria for picking and choosing RFC
paragraphs, can we please stop bashing him for being picky? It gets
rather old to see someone's opinions bashed simply because of the
source, without consideration of the thought behind them.
Even Greg can't be wrong ALL the time! ;)
Regards,
Jim Roberts
Punster Productions, Inc.
