Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!A.ISI.EDU!PADLIPSKY
From: PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU (Michael Padlipsky)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Specification vs. Implementation
Message-ID: <12504743192.22.PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU>
Date: 24 Jun 89 19:25:55 GMT
References: <93400026@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 17

Indeed, specifications should not be tied to implementations--though
designs should have been done with implementability in mind--that's
why The Book says
   An interface
   to an interpreter
   of a protocol
   is NOT
   the protocol
(line breaks approximate; haven't found the box that contains the
home copy of The Book yet).

HOWEVER, I do hope you just omitted the joke symbol when you said
that otherwise the 4.3BSD code would be the spec....

  fatigued (from upacking around 7500 pounds of Stuff) cheers,
      map
-------