rfc 3091,3092,3098

Sat May 19 01:59:26 UTC 2001

On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 06:52:39PM -0700, Micah McNelly wrote:
> I am very unclear about the nature of the following rfcs:
> 
> 3091 Pi Digit Generation Protocol
> 3098 How to Advertise Responsibly etc etc.
> 3092 Etymology of "Foo"
> 
> Is this some kind of joke?  I am seriously confused.

Sounds to me like you're not confused at all.

I like 2100, myself.  1149 is a classic, as well, and has the interesting
advantage that it's actually been implemented in the field.

See http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/ for details.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20010518/8f09c6d0/attachment.sig>