nanog mailing list archives
Re: rfc 3091,3092,3098
From: "J.D. Falk" <jdfalk () cybernothing org>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 19:30:29 -0700
On 05/18/01, David Charlap <david.charlap () marconi com> wrote:
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.Every year, on April 1st ("April Fool's day"), the IETF approves a small number of joke RFCs. 3098, BTW, is not a joke.
Neither is 3092, for that matter. It may not be about a serious technical issue, but it's still the answer to a very common set of questions relating to Internet standards in general. Plus, it's a very impressive bit of research. -- J.D. Falk an ocean refuses no river <jdfalk () cybernothing org>
Current thread:
- rfc 3091,3092,3098 Micah McNelly (May 18)
- RE: rfc 3091,3092,3098 Mark Radabaugh - Amplex (May 18)
- Re: rfc 3091,3092,3098 Shawn McMahon (May 18)
- Re: rfc 3091,3092,3098 David Charlap (May 18)
- Re: rfc 3091,3092,3098 J.D. Falk (May 18)