On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo ibc@aliax.net wrote:
2009/1/9 Daniel-Constantin Mierla miconda@gmail.com:
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"
Too acid to my taste