[87167] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Clueless anti-virus products/vendors (was Re: Sober)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Niels Bakker)
Thu Dec 8 07:00:13 2005
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 12:16:36 +0100
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>
To: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <OF0EC4650E.E79E9C28-ON802570D1.0038B7F4-802570D1.0038F925@btradianz.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
* Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com (Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com) [Thu 08 Dec 2005, 12:11 CET]:
>The RFC process itself is broken when clueless vendors treat RFCs as
>inviolable specs and implement according to the RFC even when they find
>flaws in it. If they want to remain true to the RFC process, they should
>not implement dumb things found in an RFC, instead they should write and
>submit a new RFC correcting the error and explaining the right way to do
>things.
Exactly. The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to
choose from! Why not add a few more?
-- Niels.
--
"Calling religion a drug is an insult to drugs everywhere.
Religion is more like the placebo of the masses."
-- MeFi user boaz
