zithro wrote: > On 12 Apr 2023 22:15, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > RFCs are there for having a common ground, right ?
Sort of. At various meetings, a grad student was "volunteered" to take notes. Not quite certain of how accurately he had transcribed things, he typed up "Request For Comments" at the top and sent around copies. Since then, the IETF RFC Editor has established that some RFCs are for noting what people are doing, some are for making proposals, and some are "standards track" which are expected to have compatible implementations. > If I'm not wrong, RFC compliance may even be required in some areas (via > contracts). That might happen, but it wouldn't be a great idea from a legal standpoint: RFCs are often ambiguous in surprising ways. > Like should I ignore all those non-standards stuff when setting it ? > Or should I handle them in the config ? The surprising thing about the Internet is how well it works, considering how many different interpretations people have committed into code. -dsr-
