Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1+some 2/3/84; site dual.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!dual!fair From: fair@dual.UUCP (Erik E. Fair) Newsgroups: net.mail.msggroup Subject: RFCs vs. X.* standards Message-ID: <858@dual.UUCP> Date: Mon, 29-Oct-84 01:05:50 EST Article-I.D.: dual.858 Posted: Mon Oct 29 01:05:50 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 30-Oct-84 08:12:32 EST References: <74674@QZCOM> <75558@QZCOM> Organization: Dual Systems, Berkeley, CA Lines: 35 >> Date: Tue, 23-Oct-84 11:48:00 PDT >> From: Jacob_Palme_QZ@QZCOM.MAILNET >> >> FROM: Mark Crispin >> >> I swear, though, if after we finally get into full compliance >> with RFC 822 dates they change the syntax to something >> incompatible AGAIN, I'll get the %&#@! >> >> Surely they will. Do you not know that there is an international >> standard for calendar dates. Something like this, I believe: >> 1984-10-23-17.43.59 >> for todays date. The rest of the world can go screw itself with X.400 (as they are apparently trying to) and we can pray that DoD will see the light and ignore them. Somehow, standards that are made by a committee of people who have never used or supported a large computer network (such as the ARPA INTERNET) strike me as ill conceived. For whatever glitches might be in the RFCs, they are the product of almost 15 years of research and practical experience, and should not be cavalierly discarded in favor of X.400. internet forever, Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucb-arpa.ARPA dual!fair@BERKELEY.ARPA {ihnp4,ucbvax,hplabs,decwrl,cbosgd,sun,nsc,apple,pyramid}!dual!fair Dual Systems Corporation, Berkeley, California