Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>> Just because something is documented in RFC does not automatically make it a
>>> standard, nor does it necessarily make anyone care.
>>
>> That's not a valid argument against text in the RFC proof read by
>> the RFC editor as the evidence of established terminology of the
>> Internet community.
>
> you may want to read rfc 1796, and then retract what you said because it
> sounds silly.
Anything written in RFC1796 should be ignored, because RFC1796, an
informational, not standard track, RFC, states so.
Or, is it time to retract your silliness?
Masataka Ohta
