Re: RFC1122
braden@isi.edu Fri, 06 September 1996 17:49 UTC
Received: from ietf.org by ietf.org id aa11094; 6 Sep 96 13:49 EDT
Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa11090; 6 Sep 96 13:49 EDT
Received: from zephyr.isi.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa11960; 6 Sep 96 13:49 EDT
Received: by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-23) id <AA29130>; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:44:55 -0700
Received: from venera.isi.edu by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-23) id <AA29124>; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:44:54 -0700
Received: from zephyr.isi.edu by venera.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-25) id <AA28805>; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:44:53 -0700
Received: from can.isi.edu by zephyr.isi.edu (5.65c/5.61+local-23) id <AA29120>; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 10:44:53 -0700
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 1996 10:45:35 -0700
Sender: ietf-archive-request@ietf.org
From: braden@isi.edu
Posted-Date: Fri, 6 Sep 96 10:45:35 PDT
Message-Id: <9609061745.AA28710@can.isi.edu>
Received: by can.isi.edu (4.1/4.0.3-6) id <AA28710>; Fri, 6 Sep 96 10:45:35 PDT
To: Braden@isi.edu, hien@pulse.com
Subject: Re: RFC1122
Cc: ietf-hosts@isi.edu
X-Orig-Sender: owner-ietf-hosts@isi.edu
Precedence: bulk
*> From hien@pulse.com Thu Sep 5 16:36:35 1996 *> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 19:34:37 -0700 *> From: "hien v. nguyen" <hien@pulse.com> *> Organization: Pulse Communications *> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; U) *> Mime-Version: 1.0 *> To: Braden@ISI.EDU *> Cc: hien@pulse.com *> Subject: RFC1122 *> X-Url: http://www.es.net/pub/rfcs/rfc1644.txt *> Content-Type *> : *> text/plain *> ; *> charset=us-ascii *> *> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit *> Content-Length: 325 *> X-Lines: 13 *> *> Bob, *> *> Do you know where we can go to get the statistics on *> TCP/IP implementations that are conformed to RFC1122? *> No, and if someone gave me such alleged statistics, I would not believe them. If you read RFC1122, I think you will see why. There are a great many complex technical issues. Given any particular interoperability problem between two implementations, I think that RFC1122 would give a protocol expert the input needed to decide which one was "right". But to say that a particular implementation "conforms" to RFC1122 means very little in a technical sense. I would be very surprised if ANY implementation would fully satisfy the contributors to RFC1122. But there has certainly been a convergence in the past few years. However, a vendor's conformance claim does tell you that they are above a certain threshold of cluelessness and are at least TRYING to do the right thing. *> I found from the web pages of Microsoft, Sun, etc *> explaining that they do support, how about the rest? *> Can we make assumptions like 90% of tcp/ip hosts now *> support rfc1122? The phrase "conform to RFC1122" is suspect for the reasons I just cited. The phrase "support RFC1122" has no content a priori. I am not sure why you are asking this question, but I hope that my answer helps. Bob Braden *> *> Thanks, *> Hien Nguyen *> hien@pulse.com *>
- Re: RFC1122 braden