On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:19:15 +0100
"Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 arg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Microsoft knows better than the RFC?
No.
> Microsoft knows better than to implement RFCs so everybody can benefit?
No.
> I'm not sure that either parsing is what you want to be claiming.
Good.
I was saying that Microsoft knows better than to make claims such as yo
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
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Franck Martin wrote:
The problem is that ISOC firewalls are not up to standards. Can
someone go to knock on ISOC door in Virginia and propose to help
them to solve this particular problem. And take some pictures too,
I'm curious to see what they really have...
>
> Except that a change from default values can be an excellent
indicator
> that you are dealing with a software version different from what you
> expected (and possibly incompatible).
>
> > I can't remember exactly where I saw the
> > definition, I've understood reserved fields to mean "could cha
Back to Reality:
The problem is that ISOC firewalls are not up to standards. Can someone
go to knock on ISOC door in Virginia and propose to help them to solve
this particular problem. And take some pictures too, I'm curious to see
what they really have...
This list is full of propeller heads, so
Theodore Ts'o writes:
> What Linux implemented was specifically what was specified by RFC
> 3168, no more no less.
What FreeBSD implemented actually works. Which is preferable?
> The issue is whether or not intermediate hosts are
> justified in dropping packets just because some
> bits that wer
Mark Smith writes:
> Firewalls could be considered to be performing QA for defined
> protocol fields. I agree that reserved fields shouldn't be "QA"'ed for
> their default values.
Except that a change from default values can be an excellent indicator
that you are dealing with a software version d
