Mark Smith writes: > So what purpose do RFCs serve if they aren't specific enough to be > complied with ? They can easily be complied with and yet still be general. It's just that there may be argument as to what constitutes perfect compliance or lack thereof, and it isn't generally possible to prove either way, given the vagueness of the original text. In other words, the argument in the context of this discussion, that Linux is somehow magically following RFCs with greater accuracy than usual or in comparison to others, is virtually impossible to substantiate.