@can
What I've always liked about RFC6919 is that for *every* so called "key word" it "standardises" it provides an actual example from an actual non-humorous RFC which uses that exact phrase.
Making fun of yourself the right way.
@anticomposite @simontatham
What I've always liked about RFC6919 is that for *every* so called "key word" it "standardises" it provides an actual example from an actual non-humorous RFC which uses that exact phrase.
Making fun of yourself the right way.
@anticomposite @simontatham
@simontatham @can @anticomposite I did not notice this at first. 🤣
@simontatham @anticomposite definitely funny! The fact that there's an actual RFC for it makes it even funnier imo
@wouter I had only read the abstract, but thanks to your note I had to read the whole thing. It's brilliant.
My favorite reference:
The phrase "MIGHT" conveys a requirement in an intentionally stealthy fashion, to facilitate product differentiation (cf. "COULD" above).For example: "In the case of audio and different "m" lines for different codecs, an implementation might decide to act as a mixer with the different incoming RTP sessions, which is the correct behavior."
I just adore that passive aggressive "... which is the correct behavior" and would love to hear the anecdote for why the editor snuck that in there and how many chairs were thrown during the meeting.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1