Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Monday 10 February 2003 17:01, Mark Baker wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 11:35:29AM -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> > firstname.lastname@example.org (Rich Salz) writes:
> > >Oh this is so wrong. Cf RFC 3117.
> > RFC 3117 ("On the Design of Application Protocols") is excellent reading
> > whatever your protocol interests or arguments may be. It's really nice
> > to have an informational RFC explaining the why that accompanies the
> > more formal RFCs (3080, 3081) explaining how.
> > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3117.txt
> There's some good stuff in there, but also a lot of incorrect stuff
> as well, especially the conclusion.
> We need less protocols, not more, because we need more interoperability,
> not less.
I'd agree that we need less protocols, but I don't think that the set of
protocols we want is a subset of the set of protocols we have :-)
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit