Keith,
I resonate with your points except that the earliest IETF standards
(i.e., IP itself, TCP itself, others) were incompletely specified by
RFCs. Therefore, interoperable implementations could only occur with
reference to the reference implementations.
However, the actual motivation for my query is the following: the IETF
didn't accept the existence of middleboxes until 2000 - 2002. Thus, I am
trying to convince a middlebox implementor that they misunderstood a
standards track RFC originally written in 1995 and re-published in 1998.
That RFC said "hosts do X" and other devices (which in that era meant
routers) do Y. They do Y because they are not hosts -- rather than
correctly behaving as middleboxes are supposed to do.
The reference implementations clearly demonstrate that their approach is
non-conformant even though their non-historically accurate
interpretation of that standard complies with the actual wording of that
RFC.
--Eric
From: Keith Moore [mailto:moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu]
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.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf