4 ms·
This obsoletes another RFC [1] from 2015 and that RFC had many errata [2], so maybe coming up with a non-buggy standard does take time? [1] https://tools.ietf.
by gok 8y ago
This obsoletes another RFC [1] from 2015 and that RFC had many errata [2], so maybe coming up with a non-buggy standard does take time?
[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7539 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7539
[2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7539 https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7539
- tptacek 8y agoIt is also possible that, as I am heads down in a very tedious code review and coming up for air only to write random HN comments until my brain cools off, that I am just 100% wrong about this. I am prepared to be comically wrong!
- tialaramex 8y agoYeah, I think not spotting the Obsoletes: header on the RFC header counts as comically wrong. I couldn't have told you the old RFC number off the top of my head, but it's right in the header and I know you know how to read that header. Chalk it up to a neural misfire.