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