Re: [silk] silklist Digest, Vol 15, Issue 17
On Wednesday 16 February 2011 05:19 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: I don't see the relevance to this discussion, so I'll digress to say that it always annoys me when Postel is quoted to justify accepting all sorts of malformed nonsense in protocol implementations. The idea is to be accepting where there is some ambiguity or different interpretations of the standard, not to accept things which are outright invalid. Postel's Law/Maxim/Prescription/Whathaveyou has often been quoted for things other than protocol implementation, including netiquette and as a general good principle of liberalism: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855 Abstract This document provides a minimum set of guidelines for Network Etiquette (Netiquette) which organizations may take and adapt for their own use. As such, it is deliberately written in a bulleted format to make adaptation easier and to make any particular item easy (or easier) to find. It also functions as a minimum set of guidelines for individuals, both users and administrators. This memo is the product of the Responsible Use of the Network (RUN) Working Group of the IETF. - A good rule of thumb: Be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive. You should not send heated messages (we call these flames) even if you are provoked. On the other hand, you shouldn't be surprised if you get flamed and it's prudent not to respond to flames. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [silk] silklist Digest, Vol 15, Issue 17
At 2011-02-15 17:26:54 +0530, j...@pobox.com wrote: On 15-Feb-2011, at 2:54 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: This talk of shenanigans and bandwidth conservation reminded me of Postel's Prescription: “Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send”.[1] I don't see the relevance to this discussion, so I'll digress to say that it always annoys me when Postel is quoted to justify accepting all sorts of malformed nonsense in protocol implementations. The idea is to be accepting where there is some ambiguity or different interpretations of the standard, not to accept things which are outright invalid. [1] http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/P/Postels-Prescription.html Better known as Postel's Law or the Robustness Principle. Postel's Prescription is new usage for me. It's probably just something ESR made up. -- ams
Re: [silk] silklist Digest, Vol 15, Issue 17
On Tuesday 15 February 2011 02:43 PM, Dave Long wrote: singularity may not be the most interesting concept for a mailing list, but shenanigans are a waste of bandwidth. This talk of shenanigans and bandwidth conservation reminded me of Postel's Prescription: “Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send”.[1] [1] http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/P/Postels-Prescription.html signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [silk] silklist Digest, Vol 15, Issue 17
On 15-Feb-2011, at 2:54 PM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: This talk of shenanigans and bandwidth conservation reminded me of Postel's Prescription: “Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send”.[1] [1] http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/P/Postels-Prescription.html Better known as Postel's Law or the Robustness Principle. Postel's Prescription is new usage for me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle
