henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/07/89)
In article <14612@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >... "We regard this and that as an error in the RFC" is not >the most useful attitude one could imagine... Well, when (a) any sensible implementor would prefer to ignore a requirement, (b) all existing ones do, and (c) there is no compelling reason for it to be there in the first place, wouldn't you say that's a pretty good case for considering it an error? That is admittedly an extreme case (Xref non-transmission). Note also that the "cancel" issue is the *only* thing in our "rfcerrata" document that represents an actual difference of opinion, as opposed to a case where there is good reason to suspect the writers simply goofed. More shortly on "cancel", I'm still catching up on backlog. -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu