IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] I need your "good" RFCs

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Fri, 12 February 2021 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5756D3A1059; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:57:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.472
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2l2Dk2cAC3-4; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:57:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 950333A1058; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:57:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1D9F4075A; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:56:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12ABEF4075A for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:56:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jj4kl0VbKapk for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:56:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C51CF40758 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 14:56:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unformal.localdomain ([47.186.1.92]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 11CMutKe036202 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:56:55 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1613170615; bh=pm4jxOIiL6VVELJd8tdwVNx0UJliYt2CNKgKg9JyT8k=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=sAsyglmZmDlSlt2k9QWw7MOSA41qv622w4sz358tSsmU9PEFpDiDZTaX8xQDD8hj8 RG9LBIfsVpUsne26FtPL0HRfloMbO5zVukK1EGoMSoGtwGKBtCGHhMh559qDe2PpiI 8rkP/RyCLPfpnQKmiKBRUleshSyDthXEbdQ7+iIw=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.1.92] claimed to be unformal.localdomain
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
References: <yblpn16jmt0.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <9f4b16e4-0412-ac11-f82b-f8f999c869ab@mtcc.com> <CAA=duU34kjW6KYyKZfRRejv5j41m2tEVj-qcd-buzGHnC+VYtQ@mail.gmail.com> <ybl35y1jieg.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <00ea3c23-7732-4213-9d1e-f260f7f09be1@beta.fastmail.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <26431a2f-bb38-0374-5794-c19b0be1717d@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:56:49 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <00ea3c23-7732-4213-9d1e-f260f7f09be1@beta.fastmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] I need your "good" RFCs
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 2/12/21 2:31 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021, at 04:38, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> I assume that must mean it's readable and understandable then too.
> Not a safe assumption. A simple protocol, which this is, often does not get implemented on the basis of its specification.

Happens with complicated protocols too. Implementation by watching 
wireshark and making guesses is a thing in the wild. But that can be 
enough to become fully conformant if the protocol is simple.


>
> (Not saying that RFC 826 is bad. I am not familiar with it enough to say.)
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email