"Grant Taylor" wrote: > On 1/27/22 7:05 AM, Eric D Rossman wrote: > > Yeah, yeah. Semantics. :) > > In some ways it's not /just/ semantics.
True. I was trying to add a little levity there. > > Bottom line is that this is a well-established convention. It is NOT > > a defined standard anywhere. Heck, RFCs aren't standards at all anyway. > > Actually, many RFCs are considered standards track and are the > definitive source for some things. Oh, I completely agree. I was pointing out that the RFCs always state that they are not standards, even when they really are. I certainly use RFCs in my work and have to adhere. (Look at how many of the PKCS are also RFCs) > > It was never codified anywhere that I can find. My best guess is that > > it was a handshake agreement on some early email support and just > > "stuck." > > Maybe ~> probably. > > I would actually be quite happy to find an RFC that has a SHOULD or MUST > for the "-- " standard. If for not other reason than to print out, roll > up, and bop some people about the head / shoulders with. ;-) Works for me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
