Re: Fwd: Proposal - UUID data type

Gregory Stark wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:877ibonuyk.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com" type="cite"><pre wrap="">"Mark Mielke"
<aclass="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark@mark.mielke.cc"><mark@mark.mielke.cc></a> writes:
</pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">I'm sure one or two examples must exist, but I cannot think of any. Every
 
enhancement I can think of that eventually made it into a standard, was first
implemented within a popular product, and then demanded as a standard to be
applied to all other products.   </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
C99? SMTP? NTP?

It tends to be important for network protocols since there's no gain in having
non-interoperable protocols. </pre></blockquote><br /> For C99 - GCC had most of the C99 features years before C99
started.There are now some incompatibles that need to be dealt with.<br /><br /> For SMTP and NTP I think these
protocolsare just so old that people don't realize how much they have evolved, and how many products existed. I wasn't
inthe know at the time they were written (I was either a baby or in grade school), but I bet either: 1) they were
writtenbefore it existed at all (not really an enhancment), or 2) they followed the prototype as it was implemented.
Therehave been many extensions to SMTP that I have been aware of included support for SSL, that I doubt were in the
standardfirst. The "RFC" is a "request for comment". The "STD" process came a lot later.<br /><br /> If we grab a
phrasefrom RFC 1305 for NTP - "In Version 3 a new algorithm to combine the offsets of a number of peer time servers is
presentedin Appendix F. This algorithm is modelled on those used by national standards laboratories to combine the
weightedoffsets from a number of standard clocks to construct a synthetic laboratory timescale more accurate than that
ofany clock separately." This seems pretty clear that the "standard" was updated based upon existing implementation.<br
/><br/> To some degree, except for the simplest of designs, it is almost bad to write down what WILL be done, without
havingexperience, or a prototype to based ones conclusions from. Ivory tower stuff. The purpose of a standard is to
haveone common way that things are done - hopefully the best way - not just the only way that was considered. :-)<br
/><br/> Cheers,<br /> mark<br /><br /><pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
 
Mark Mielke <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mark@mielke.cc"><mark@mielke.cc></a>
</pre>