----- Original Message ----- From: "Janet P Gunn" <jgunn6@xxxxxxx> To: "William Jordan" <wjordan129@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:29 PM Subject: Re: A modest proposal > Do none of you know what the phrase "a modest proposal" refers to? > > Try googling it. Or else look through the archives; Margaret explained it very clearly on August 1st, 2011. Tom Petch > > Janet > > > ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx wrote on 01/21/2013 11:57:22 PM: > > > From: William Jordan <wjordan129@xxxxxxxxx> > > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > > Date: 01/22/2013 12:01 AM > > Subject: A modest proposal > > Sent by: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx > > > > I've recent had to write a program to interface with a SIP lync > > server and in doing so have had to code to several rfcs. After > > reading and dealing with implementation of the various rfcs I have > > read I have come up with what I consider "A modest proposal" to fix > > some of the problems I've seen with implementing a rfc. I think > > anyone who writes a rfc should have to provide a working ANSI/C or > > GNU/C implementation of the rfc in question. Specifically, I have > > worked with the SIP rfc (rfc 3261) and have come to the conclusion > > that whoever wrote the rfc has never coded a day in their life. > > Whoever thought it was a good idea to allow multiple ways of doing > > the same exact thing would hopefully be deterred by actually writing > > code to do it. I think a suitable punishment for those people would > > be to write each way of writing a from header on a blackboard 100 > > times... this would actually be less of the pain they've cause by > > making each writer of a SIP stack handle each possible way of doing > things. > > > > Anyways, that is my modest proposal, please respond or I will be > > forced to reply every day to this mailing list on each and every way > > the SIP spec sucks one email at a time. FYI I'm not sure if GNU/C > > is the correct acronym, maybe its POSIX/C. > > > > Regards, > > Bill