On 1/22/13 8:29 AM, Janet P Gunn wrote:
Do none of you know what the phrase "a modest proposal" refers to?
We should kill and eat more internet drafts before they reach one year
of age.
Try googling it.
Janet
ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org wrote on 01/21/2013 11:57:22 PM:
> From: William Jordan <wjordan129(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
> To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> Date: 01/22/2013 12:01 AM
> Subject: A modest proposal
> Sent by: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
>
> I've recent had to write a program to interface with a SIP lync
> server and in doing so have had to code to several rfcs. After
> reading and dealing with implementation of the various rfcs I have
> read I have come up with what I consider "A modest proposal" to fix
> some of the problems I've seen with implementing a rfc. I think
> anyone who writes a rfc should have to provide a working ANSI/C or
> GNU/C implementation of the rfc in question. Specifically, I have
> worked with the SIP rfc (rfc 3261) and have come to the conclusion
> that whoever wrote the rfc has never coded a day in their life.
> Whoever thought it was a good idea to allow multiple ways of doing
> the same exact thing would hopefully be deterred by actually writing
> code to do it. I think a suitable punishment for those people would
> be to write each way of writing a from header on a blackboard 100
> times... this would actually be less of the pain they've cause by
> making each writer of a SIP stack handle each possible way of doing
things.
>
> Anyways, that is my modest proposal, please respond or I will be
> forced to reply every day to this mailing list on each and every way
> the SIP spec sucks one email at a time. FYI I'm not sure if GNU/C
> is the correct acronym, maybe its POSIX/C.
>
> Regards,
> Bill