Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU!almquist
From: almquist@JESSICA.STANFORD.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: New Host-Requirement RFCs
Message-ID: <8910122223.AA06605@jessica.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 12 Oct 89 22:23:28 GMT
References: <1949@cmx.npac.syr.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 23

John,
> [RFC1122/RFC1123] avoids the issue of implementations not meant to
> include all the applications mentioned, i.e., a single-user system which
> wisely makes no effort to offer SMTP service...  I can imagine a paper
> describing everything a host ought to do if it can claim to offer
> "TELNET" service, if it can claim to offer "FTP" service, etc.

	As one of the authors of the Host Requirements RFCs, I don't
think that there was ever any intention that a host would be
non-compliant simply because it didn't choose to support certain
applications.  In my opinion, a host which doesn't support email is
compliant with the SMTP requirements of RFC1122.  However, if the vendor
claims a compliant implementation of SMTP, you can expect that he will
meet the requirements put forth in the SMTP chapter (and also the
chapters describing protocols needed to support SMTP, such as TCP, DNS,
...).

> Perhaps it could also address the different protocols below IP too.

	The Host Requirements RFCs defer to the Gateway Requirements RFC
for layers below IP (since these are the same for hosts and gateways).

						Philip