On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 07:37:23 +0100 "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Linux could at least stand on the claim that it was implementing > > the RFCs as written, and that the interoperability problem was > > due to the other end failing to implement the RFCs. > > The RFCs are not specific enough to support such a claim. > So what purpose do RFCs serve if they aren't specific enough to be complied with ? I'm intrigued to find out what you think they are for.
