5 ms·
Just came here with the same link in my clipboard and a question: What would be the reason for using "lsd" instead of popular IETF RFCs? The fact that RFC is su
by hericium 4y ago
Just came here with the same link in my clipboard and a question: What would be the reason for using "lsd" instead of popular IETF RFCs? The fact that RFC is supposed to open a dialogue/discussion and "lsd" is something final? (edit: it isn't; it's a IETF-style Internet-Draft). Other LSDs on that site link to RFCs.
And, um, second question: what does "lsd" stand for in this case?
- forgotpwd16 4y ago>What would be the reason for using "lsd" instead of popular IETF RFCs? Maybe due to the following? >This specification was developed outside the IETF and does not have IETF consensus.
- capableweb 4y agoMost RFCs start without consensus as well, that's why they are Request For Comments, to reconcile about the idea/specification
- schanzen 4y agoThis sentence is usually added for specifications which are submitted independently to the Independent Stream Editor, as opposed to drafts which are discussed in a WG at IETF.
- junon 4y agoI can't find much on what "LSD" means here. The root of the subdomain has no index, just a file listing.
- schanzen 4y agoIt stands for "Living Standards Document": https://www.gnunet.org/en/livingstandards.html https://www.gnunet.org/en/livingstandards.html