[rfc-i] I need your "good" RFCs

Robert Sparks rjsparks at nostrum.com
Fri Feb 12 14:56:49 PST 2021


On 2/12/21 2:31 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021, at 04:38, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>> I assume that must mean it's readable and understandable then too.
> Not a safe assumption. A simple protocol, which this is, often does not get implemented on the basis of its specification.

Happens with complicated protocols too. Implementation by watching 
wireshark and making guesses is a thing in the wild. But that can be 
enough to become fully conformant if the protocol is simple.


>
> (Not saying that RFC 826 is bad. I am not familiar with it enough to say.)
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list