nanog mailing list archives
Re: Class "B" forsale (fwd)
From: Scott Bradner <sob () newdev harvard edu>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 13:52:23 -0500 (EST)
Bret fumed: -- I could turn around tomorrow and create an MUA that doesn't follow the SMTP RFC except in the most remote cases and whats going to happen? _NOTHING_, why? because RFCs simply are not the GOSPEL, and lets face it, stupid traditions are just that, stupid traditions, this is no longer your cozy little lounge, there are millions of people here and just because you got here first doesn't mean you're allowed to make decisions for the rest of them. -- oh please do - it is a great business plan for you to do that (at least for the rest of us) "standards", standards-track RFCs among them, are generally not "enforced". If I recall correctly many governments tried to do that with GOSIP, sure did that set of standards a lot of good. Some standards are not even perfect. But building to a standard is far better for the consumer (remember twisted- pair Ethernet before the 10BaseT standard?) and better for the vendor. Just because you decide to start building twisted pair Ethernet after the standard was adopted does not mean that it all that good a business plan to do so in a way that is not complient with 10BBaseT. Scott - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Class "B" forsale (fwd), (continued)
- Re: Class "B" forsale (fwd) Kim Hubbard (Mar 10)
- Re: Class "B" forsale (fwd) Brett L. Hawn (Mar 10)
- Re: Class "B" forsale (fwd) bmanning (Mar 10)
- Re: Class "B" forsale (fwd) Paul A Vixie (Mar 10)
- Re: Class "B" forsale (fwd) Hank Nussbacher (Mar 10)
- Re: Class "B" forsale (fwd) Bill Manning (Mar 10)
- Re: Class "B" forsale (fwd) Karl Denninger (Mar 09)
- Routing Information guard (was Class "B" forsale ) Ichiro Mizukoshi (Mar 09)
- RE: Class "B" forsale (fwd) Michael Shields (Mar 10)