ietf-822
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Regarding SMTP Message specification syntax ...

2003-10-09 01:52:29

DJB writes:

Keith Moore writes:
if we had tried to sort out all of these issues, we'd have missed the
opportunity to use 2822 as an RFC number

It's cute to replace 822 with 2822. It's mind-bogglingly stupid to use
that cuteness as an excuse for ignoring issues. This is supposed to be
a helpful document for implementors, not an April Fool's RFC.

The original aim was for 1821/1822, but that was missed. Also, the
numbers 2821/2822 were reserved for some time before the RFC's were
published. Just checks the dates on the surrounding RFC's.

It was NOT done by waiting for the numbers to fly by, and then just
publish that moment.

---D. J. Bernstein

--Johnny, excellent programmer, network tech and agitator.