[ranger_danger]

Sorry, what I was implying is that "It’s a good thing we have RFCs" doesn't mean that they ARE always sufficiently specified... even if this one is.

[necovek]

I understand that: the problem is that in this example, it is, so the problem is obviously somewhere else — that's what we should explore.

Is it just that the RFC has not been read properly? Maybe, but even if it was, I do not think having precisely defined behaviour in RFCs is sufficient: real world implementations have to be more flexible due to other buggy implementations they interact with.