RE: Question about the normative nature of IETF RFCs

Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com> Thu, 29 September 2005 17:24 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EL28z-0007Nx-2E; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:24:29 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EL28w-0007K9-Q1 for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:24:26 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA23656 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:24:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.42.13]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EL2Gb-000863-4d for ietf@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:32:24 -0400
Received: from eastmail2bur.East.Sun.COM ([129.148.13.40]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j8THO12B009590; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:24:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from thunk.east.sun.com (thunk.East.Sun.COM [129.148.174.66]) by eastmail2bur.East.Sun.COM (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id j8THO1WB018872; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:24:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thunk.east.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8THO0oK012077; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:24:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@sun.com>
To: "Fleischman, Eric" <eric.fleischman@boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <474EEBD229DF754FB83D256004D02108BBC978@XCH-NW-6V1.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <474EEBD229DF754FB83D256004D02108BBC978@XCH-NW-6V1.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1128014639.1506.25.camel@thunk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6.323
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:24:00 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Question about the normative nature of IETF RFCs
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 16:50, Fleischman, Eric wrote:
> 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 -- 

middleboxes are sometimes router-like, and sometimes host-like, and
sometimes both at the same time, and sometimes neither.

And this is just another instance whereby the specs are always
incomplete -- something new comes along which is neither host nor
router.  and, in such cases, implementors need to use their brains about
which behavior makes most sense given the context rather than
interpreting the words in the spec as if they were code.

> rather than correctly behaving as middleboxes are supposed to do.

except that I don't believe there's a single type of middlebox ...

					- Bill



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf