Rohit
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: <@mta2.nts.uci.edu:owner-ietf-applcore@imc.org>
Received: from mta2.nts.uci.edu by paris.ics.uci.edu id aa23292;
16 Apr 99 11:36 PDT
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by mta2.nts.uci.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA20341
for ROHIT@ics.uci.edu.xyzzy; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
by mta2.nts.uci.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA20334
for rohit@uci.edu.xyzzy; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:36:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224])
by mta2.nts.uci.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA20329
for <rohit@uci.edu>; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:36:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) id LAA26934
for ietf-applcore-bks; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from THOR.INNOSOFT.COM (SYSTEM@THOR.INNOSOFT.COM [192.160.253.66])
by mail.proper.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA26930
for <ietf-applcore@imc.org>; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elvira.innosoft.com ([192.160.253.135])
by INNOSOFT.COM (PMDF V5.2-32 #30494)
with ESMTPS id <01JA3L8I40EY8WWVTX@INNOSOFT.COM> for ietf-applcore@imc.org;
Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:30:41 PDT
Received: from CONVERSION-DAEMON by elvira.innosoft.com (PMDF V5.2-32 #13579)
id <0FAA00F01OO29L@elvira.innosoft.com> for ietf-applcore@imc.org; Fri,
16 Apr 1999 11:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elwood.innosoft.com (ELWOOD.INNOSOFT.COM [192.160.253.235])
by elvira.innosoft.com (PMDF V5.2-32 #13579)
with SMTP id <0FAA000S1OO1TQ@elvira.innosoft.com> for ietf-applcore@imc.org;
Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:30:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@innosoft.com>
Subject: Survey of RFCs
Originator-info: login-id=chris; server=THOR.INNOSOFT.COM
To: ietf-applcore@imc.org
Message-id: <Pine.SOL.3.95.990416102535.3039A-100000@elwood.innosoft.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Sender: owner-ietf-applcore@imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-applcore/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-applcore-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
RFC 2555 announced an informal survey of people's favorite RFCs.
The results (so far) are entertaining in a number of ways...
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/surveyresults.html>
RFC 822
is the leader. I suspect most of the people who voted for it weren't
involved in DRUMS. It's certainly an important RFC, but has caused me
much pain over the years. It's not even Y2K complaint!
RFC 1149
is in second place. Not a bad humor RFC.
RFC 1459
I don't understand why this is popular.
RFC 1918
I guess a lot of people didn't like the end-to-end model?
RFC 1925
a popular April 1st RFC. It's quite funny, quite true, and it's quite sad
that these twelve networking truths seem to get more true with time. (5),
(6) and (10) should be of special concern to this group.
RFC 1945 / RFC 2324 / RFC 2068
In the HTTP world, it looks like HTTP 1.0 is the favorite, followed by
HTCPCP, with HTTP 1.1 a distant third. Speculations about why this is the
case can get interesting...
- Chris
------- End of Forwarded Message