On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:19:15 +0100 "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Are you aware of the reason why certain words are capitalised in RFCs ? I suggest you spend a few minutes reading this RFC if you aren't http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html > > 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. > Implementations can be measured against the capitalised words in RFCs. As friendly piece of advice, the more you argue these points, the more you are showing what you don't know, and are embarressing yourself.