So much for hope. Look, Ned. Without thinking much I came up with four examples where the IETF has RFCs on "competing" standards, and without thinking hard I named several. Your followup was non-responsive. One isn't your area of expertise but you challenged me anyway, one you got wrong (Usenet, not UUCP mail), one you don't undersatnd the history of (SNMP), and one where I was sloppy in that I talked about character sets without enough context, apparently, for you to see that I was talking about all the charset definitions and transport issues that are floating around. I have email from Scott Bradner that says the IETF has a history of adopting competing standards. >In other words, you don't care enough to bother to try and reconcile the >two different schemes. That's fine with me, but surely you see it is this >sort of attitude that has led to the present situation? I don't understand how you could come to such an understanding. I know that you saw my question on convergence statements and subsequent response. HTTP probably wants an extensible scheme that support multiple hashes in a single header. Email has Content-MD5 as existing practice. I had discussions with one of the RFC authors and was convinced that better language standardizing common practice was a good thing, in spite of the fact that my implementation experience (arguably the first in widespread Internet use) showed it to be less than optimal. Again, this is just a summary of my previous messages on this topic, easily verifiable from the archives. /r$Received on Sunday, 5 November 1995 19:06:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:56 UTC