| | Re: Incoherent E-mails
"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
> "Moe Trin" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:32:37 -0500
> > I could say "it's just you" - but I won't. There are a few. For
> > RFC0821 and 0822 are standards for SMTP and text messages and both have
> > been "obsoleted" (by RFC2821 and 2822), but the original docs remain
> > as "STANDARD", and the replacements are only a "PROPOSED STANDARD". (In
> > you can't follow the commands above - first one says there are 4176
> > The second strips out the status term and counts them - the last notes
> > 78 were not issued.)
> The problem with standards is they disallow innovation. The best you
> can do with RFC is patch the dang thing. It is a sorry *** standard
> today. And it holds us back technology-wise today.
Sorry, couldn't ignore /that/ one!
Everyone's free to innovate, but, end of the day, Standards help things to
interoperate. The /way/ people follow them vary:
Some follow blindly, whether or not it's actually a good idea to "upgrade"
your compliance (the SMTP example, above, is a good example of how to turn a
couple of problems into major problems)
Some try to have a go, because it sounds like a kewl feature, and b*gger it
up (Firefox & IDN sound familiar?)
Some donate to an official body (e.g. DEC with VT/ANSI)
Some stick with the proprietary route, and either publish them or donate
proprietary code & staff (and then call it an Open Standard!) (e.g. IBM)
Others stick with the proprietary route and tack RFC compliance on the side
(e.g. DEC, Microsoft)
Others have enough oomph to pretty much push through what they like, or get
around to writing stuff up after the event (e.g. Cisco)
Others form Industry bodies to provide cooperative propriety standards (WiFi
"The wonderful thing about Computing Standards is that there are so many to
choose from". But it's still better than it used to be...