"The ordinals 17, 42 and 6.12 are reserved to reduce confusion.
The ordinals 18 and 19 are reserved for the strings "Reserved" and "Unassigned" respectively.
Unfortunately the ordinal 20 was used by two earlier, competing proposals, and so can mean either "Color" or Colour". Implementations are encouraged to disambiguate based upon context."
Your snarfing was the impetus for my snarf. Ergo, not all snarfing originates from user Angostura, but all of user Angostura's snarfing has historically beget my snarfs.
"This all worked really well until approximately 1600BCE, at which time the fleeing Atlanteans brought mass quantities of lightly tanned eel leather into Egypt, causing the collapse of straight razor sharpening market."
I really admire people who can write a story like this off the top of their head.
The default exchange rate of 1:1 moose:pineapples seems to have been a bit unfair on the Canadians. In other news, herd of moose are overrunning Hawaii.
"Unlike most IETF efforts, this document is not embarrassed to clearly state that we are simply shuffling more stuff in while we have the editor open."
But that's an RFC, so it carries (very slightly) more weight than an Internet Draft. In the real world, what matters is whether it's implemented: https://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/writeup/
> In the real world, what matters is whether it's implemented
Yes, RFC 2324[1] is also serious business because it’s implemented in the real world. Or at least I have implemented HTTP 418 I’m a teapot. (I’ve also seen gross violations where some APIs use HTTP 418 as their custom error code instead of complying with the RFC.)
> I've also seen gross violations where some APIs use HTTP 418 as their custom error code instead of complying with the RFC.
I know a lot of people disagree with the IETF's policy of imprisoning those who fail to comply with the RFC, but personally I don't think they go far enough.
To be fair, that's also true of RFCs as. (E.g., IP over carrier pigeon). But that doesn't really matter.
Take HTTP for example. The is no ISO standard, just a smattering of overlapping RFCs over the years with weird spellings (Referer) and ambiguities (GET request entity).
And the entire web is based on HTTP.
The quality of the "specification" documents is not high, nor very official, but it's the best we have, so people treat it as if it were.
In addition to the point made in the article, even some RFCs do not indicate "what the IETF thinks". And I'm not just talking about April 1st RFCs.
The IETF has the "Independent Submission Editor" stream of RFCs, which produces RFCs without getting IETF consensus. These RFCs are considered to be work "outside" of the IETF, but can still be published as an RFC.
The mechanism described in this document does not have IETF consensus
and is not a standard. It is a widely deployed approach that has
turned out to be useful and is presented here so that server and
browser implementations can have a common understanding of how it
operates.
RFCs are just a way for big corporations to collaborate on shared standards. It doesn't mean that other approaches can't become standards as well. It's kind of disturbing that RFCs seem to give projects automatic trustworthiness that they didn't actually earn.
At least more than one interested party thought about it, and documented the result. It might not be good, but it's worth evaluating to see if it's good enough.
Tldr: if you must send datagrams via pigeons, consider the rfc, then use an exfat microsd card.
On the contrary; it permits it. Since its purpose was to prevant misattribution of internet-drafts to the ietf, we can surely now claim with certainty that the ietf teaches fake news about the demise of ancient egypt.
If HN guidelines are considered to allow it, I suggest tweaking the title here to say "Internet Draft" rather than just "ID", which is unambiguous in the original context (i.e., a thing that actually is an Internet Draft) but not as an HN title.
"The ordinals 17, 42 and 6.12 are reserved to reduce confusion.
The ordinals 18 and 19 are reserved for the strings "Reserved" and "Unassigned" respectively.
Unfortunately the ordinal 20 was used by two earlier, competing proposals, and so can mean either "Color" or Colour". Implementations are encouraged to disambiguate based upon context."
At which point I audibly snarfed.