Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > FWIW, there has been an extended discussion on another list initiated> > by someone who has insisted that it is perfectly reasonable to
> > implement RFC 821 today because, while it is listed as being obsoleted
> > by 2821, is still an Internet Standard (as part of STD0010). The other
>
> Sigh... by someone who should know better?
> I mean, your timemachine had better implement RFC821.
>
> Sigh... by someone who should know better?
> I mean, your timemachine had better implement RFC821.
I mean, that is the point. That's what you would do to interoperate with old things that are not going to be updated (any RFC, not just 821). Go read the old RFC and figure out what they are doing. It is a perfectly valid thing to do.
That is one reason I really like HTCPCP*. One might propose SHTCPCP (HTCPCP over TLS 1.3), but that's no reason to entertain objections that coffee pots and teapots can't be updated to support newer TLS RFCs.
thanks,
Rob
