A modest proposal

William Jordan <wjordan129@gmail.com> Tue, 22 January 2013 04:57 UTC

Return-Path: <wjordan129@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBC711E80A5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:57:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S+JjEYfmm-hB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:57:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com (mail-ob0-f174.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8336D11E8097 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:57:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id 16so719249obc.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:57:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=RbqsEscOanRZmmkpTcw954D7jJy4m7QGoSPDDVy5C+8=; b=PSAIotA4khAJ7cGKfWspIHzVwfQ+slrJaP6kufp4xlkq3KEH6b6oj7e19YAVngApiM EmkZCX+JXoxPLe5AFH/34rKxKtSG3o0+hjoH4qFhdUJJKp35WQlEg9PdhgqtFCjfk+2/ z01O1iQ7+Hlmzzes/cicTwuXyOu4Lb2ikNXxVdkYtjK8HD7A+IrpMI9V/Zcm+dnj24Jy uQttyJ6nb9wMMIV4mFvlCc4LIdBiNcejmpz3hF8DfdTPpdVE1F7F1NghJuBRs1QRI4WK fNDjbQyL2iQrb+1SQAQDYZMqAONc51swBpI2dubbgcinBEPsfYmnAFwZhUXbgOU8e+10 /TIw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id o7mr15664343oee.126.1358830643060; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:57:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:57:22 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 23:57:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPJ9He0dOttM+DmpUt9MzfWEXcs+tbpJJy4Z+usoRroyAdzJbA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: A modest proposal
From: William Jordan <wjordan129@gmail.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff1c6eeca209804d3d969ad"
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:01:38 -0000

I've recent had to write a program to interface with a SIP lync server and
in doing so have had to code to several rfcs.  After reading and dealing
with implementation of the various rfcs I have read I have come up with
what I consider "A modest proposal" to fix some of the problems I've seen
with implementing a rfc.  I think anyone who writes a rfc should have to
provide a working ANSI/C or GNU/C implementation of the rfc in question.
 Specifically, I have worked with the SIP rfc (rfc 3261) and have come to
the conclusion that whoever wrote the rfc has never coded a day in their
life.  Whoever thought it was a good idea to allow multiple ways of doing
the same exact thing would hopefully be deterred by actually writing code
to do it.  I think a suitable punishment for those people would be to write
each way of writing a from header on a blackboard 100 times... this would
actually be less of the pain they've cause by making each writer of a SIP
stack handle each possible way of doing things.

Anyways, that is my modest proposal, please respond or I will be forced to
reply every day to this mailing list on each and every way the SIP spec
sucks one email at a time.  FYI I'm not sure if GNU/C is the correct
acronym, maybe its POSIX/C.