On 2015-02-14 14:33, MFPA wrote: > Hi > > > On Friday 13 February 2015 at 7:41:14 PM, in > <mid:54de535a.2060...@sixdemonbag.org>, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > > > > Postel's sentiments were more, "Reject traffic that > > does not conform to the spec, even if it's in common > > use; accept traffic that conforms to the protocol spec, > > even if it's exotic; and only generate traffic that > > conforms to both spec and common use." Unfortunately, > > that loses much of the poetry of the original phrasing. > > > Rejecting traffic that does not conform to the spec, even if it's in > common use is counter-intuitive. It seems to be denying yourself > access to some of the incoming traffic for the sake of pedantry, which > sounds like it would harm interoperability. But, of course, the point > of having a spec is interoperability. > >
Not necesarily. Writing and testing the code to support non-standard traffic takes time and effort, and may increase the likelyhood of introducing some bug. In proyects that don't have a lot of manpower, implementing such compatibility may be a dealbreaker. -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
