[37655] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: rfc 3091,3092,3098
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Shawn McMahon)
Fri May 18 22:06:14 2001
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 21:59:26 -0400
From: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon@eiv.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010518215926.H7566@eiv.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SdvjNjn6lL3tIsv0"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <001f01c0e006$6463edb0$9100010a@BRAINCHILD>; from micah@style.net on Fri, May 18, 2001 at 06:52:39PM -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--SdvjNjn6lL3tIsv0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 06:52:39PM -0700, Micah McNelly wrote:
> I am very unclear about the nature of the following rfcs:
>=20
> 3091 Pi Digit Generation Protocol
> 3098 How to Advertise Responsibly etc etc.
> 3092 Etymology of "Foo"
>=20
> 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.
--SdvjNjn6lL3tIsv0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEARECAAYFAjsF030ACgkQEcl9bQ0RMt38PACg7n+LMVCiymaqSrxS7yNAukxo
mqYAnjB4ECimnE0Uqkbq1DxWxew5IhYe
=bLs9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--SdvjNjn6lL3tIsv0--
