Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!B.ISI.EDU!POSTEL
From: POSTEL@B.ISI.EDU
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: RFCs & MIL-STDs
Message-ID: <8610130034.AA11873@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Sun, 12-Oct-86 18:50:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8610130034.AA11873
Posted: Sun Oct 12 18:50:45 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 12-Oct-86 22:32:45 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 15
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa


Hi.

It is the intention that the RFC specifications and the MIL-STD
specifications describe exactly the same protocols.  In principle, an
implementation based solely on the RFCs should interoperate with an
implementation based solely on the MIL-STDs.  In practice, every
implementer should make use of both the RFC documents and the MIL-STD
documents.  The notion that the RFCs apply to ARPANET, and the
MIL-STDs to MILNET is wrong.  If an implementer thinks there is a
difference in what is required between the RFCs and the MIL-STDs that
difference should be reported to DCA and the IAB and be resolved.

--jon.
-------