9 Jan
2009
9 Jan
'09
6:11 a.m.
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc(a)aliax.net> wrote:
2009/1/9 Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<miconda(a)gmail.com>om>:
Too acid to my taste
--
Victor Pascual Ávila
The question could be the other way around: does
anyone remember another
technology that needed so many patches and workarounds :-)? Just
thinking about the number of RFCs and drafts coming to
complete/recommend/give usage guidelines ...
I can imagine IETF people writting RFC 3261 in their IPv6 LAN networks:
- IETF man in black 1: "humm, should I consider NAT in this
specification?..."
- IETF man in black 2: "mmmmmm, but what is NAT?"
- IETF man in black 1: "AFAIK NAT is what the real world outside uses
in their homes and offices, I think not all
the world uses IPv6 yet... not sure..."
- IETF man in black 2: "but... if we solve NAT issue in this document...
what could be writte in the future? I need to
write more and more drafts and RFC, it's an
obsession!"
- IETF man in black 1: "Ok, you ar right, let's ignore NAT. Hopefully
noobdy will implement this specification..."
- IETF man in black 2: "Cheers"