----- Original Message -----
From: "Janet P Gunn" <jgunn6(_at_)csc(_dot_)com>
To: "William Jordan" <wjordan129(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: A modest proposal
Do none of you know what the phrase "a modest proposal" refers to?
Try googling it.
Or else look through the archives; Margaret explained it very clearly on
August 1st, 2011.
Tom Petch
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