[rfc-i] I need your "good" RFCs

Martin Thomson mt at lowentropy.net
Fri Feb 12 12:31:50 PST 2021



On Sat, Feb 13, 2021, at 04:38, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> I assume that must mean it's readable and understandable then too.

Not a safe assumption. A simple protocol, which this is, often does not get implemented on the basis of its specification.

(Not saying that RFC 826 is bad. I am not familiar with it enough to say.)


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list