The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query)

Tue Sep 11 11:52:51 UTC 2012

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 05:51:53 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:

> Anything written in RFC1796 should be ignored, because RFC1796, an
> informational, not standard track, RFC, states so.

On the other hand, if you're relying on the fact that 1796 is informational in
order to ignore it, then you're following its guidance even though it's not a
standard.

Insisting on being pedantic on its status will merely leave you wondering
who shaves the barber.

> Or, is it time to retract your silliness?

Standard or not, we have Christian Huitema, John Postel, and Steve Crocker
telling you something about RFCs and how they actually work.  Which is more
likely, that all 3 of them were wrong, or that you're the one that's confused?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 865 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20120911/4aa8c54b/attachment.sig>