^ fun not included
Are you SHOULD reading or MUST reading the RFCs? ๐
#RFC2119 || GTFO ๐คช ๐ค
Eh. On occasion, RFCs work better than Chamomile tea. You MAY do you.
Heh. So...valerian tea or rfc 3217? What's gonna send you off to dreamland? ๐
@kevinbowen previously that was an unintended (but not unwelcome) side-effect of some meds I was on, atm itโs fairly elusive even with otc meds. Iโm working on it ๐โโ๏ธ
I try to stay away from the deep magicks RFCs - whenever Iโm at an org where I realise Iโm the closest thing they have to a cryptographer^, I start to get twitchyโฆ ๐คช
^ I take the same approach to cryptography as I do to interpretation of legislation, even though I have had exposure to both: โI am not a [lawyer|cryptographer]. And even if I _were_ a [lawyer|cryptographer], Iโm not _your_ [lawyer|cryptographer].โ ๐โโ๏ธ
Your footnote is _really_ good boilerplate for many situations.
I decided the same thing
https://infosec.exchange/@itgrrl/112981771774149383 ๐โโ๏ธ
Attached: 1 image Pls repeat after me: โI am not a [lawyer|cryptographer]. And even if I _were_ a [lawyer|cryptographer], Iโm not _your_ [lawyer|cryptographer].โ ๐โโ๏ธ
Whos awesome? Your awesome!