Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!A.ISI.EDU!CERF
From: CERF@A.ISI.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Specification vs. Implementation
Message-ID: <[A.ISI.EDU]20-Jun-89.05:18:01.CERF>
Date: 20 Jun 89 09:18:00 GMT
References: <93400026@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 20

Johnny,

Flaming aside, your points have merit. Please bear in mind, however,
that the RFCs were written rather a long time ago when the normal
programming paradigms and languages for communication protocol
implementation typically used concepts like pointers and
function calls/system calls.

It is HARD to write good specifications which are readable,
applicable to a variety of implementation methods, and specific
enough to really tie down the details. Erring in one direction
leaves you open to complaints about insufficient detail while
erring in the other leads to cries that you've bound the
implementation options too severely.

Have you done any implementions based on the OSI specifications?
Marshall Rose has, and I'm not sure he'd fully concur with your
apparent view that these specs are easier to use...

Vint Cerf