Specifically, when I first became associated with you all in 1992, the
RFCs of most IETF standards were incomplete and the reference
implementations (i.e., running code) were what was considered to be
normative.
I've been involved with IETF since circa 1990 and have always been of
the impression that standards-track RFCs - not implementations - were
intended to be normative. Frankly I don't see how it could be any
other way. While a discrepancy between an implementation and a
specification _might_ be due to a flaw in the specification, it is at
least as likely to be due to a flaw in the implementation - and the
specification is the primary definition of the protocol, whereas any
particular implementation is merely an artifact. Also, every single
attempt I have seen to try to derive a normative specification of a
protocol from an implementation has produced a document which failed to
adequately specify the protocol.
As far as IETF is concerned, running code should be seen as a
proof-of-concept and a test vehicle, not as primary source material.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf