> 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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf