Request for Comments
draft-carpenter-request-for-comments-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2018-06-05
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                       B. Carpenter
Internet-Draft                                         Univ. of Auckland
Intended status: Informational                              June 6, 2018
Expires: December 8, 2018

                          Request for Comments
                draft-carpenter-request-for-comments-00

Abstract

   This document discusses the Internet technical community's common
   document series.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 8, 2018.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Carpenter               Expires December 8, 2018                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            Request for Comments                 June 2018

Table of Contents

   1.  TL;DR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  The Problems with the RFC Series  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Who Owns the RFC Series?  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Request for Comments means Request for Comments . . . . . . .   5
   5.  Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   7.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix A.  Change log [RFC Editor: Please remove] . . . . . . .   7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  TL;DR

   "I present here some of the tentative agreements reached and some of
   the open questions encountered.  Very little of what is here is firm
   and reactions are expected."  [RFC0001], Steve Crocker, 7 April 1969.

2.  The Problems with the RFC Series

   It's very clear that there are problems with the RFC series.  For
   example, [RFC0791] is so badly written that it would never pass an
   IETF working group last call, let alone an IETF last call or an IESG
   review today.  Yet it will be exercised billions of times today and
   every day.  Another example is that a newcomer wishing to implement
   even the simplest mail user agent will not find an RFC telling her
   how to do so.  A method to mitigate this problem has been proposed
   but not adopted [I-D.ietf-newtrk-sample-isd].  A related problem is
   that finding the latest version of a standard requires arcane
   knowledge; for example, someone looking for the latest IPv6 standard
   via the popular search tools is more than likely to end up consulting
   the obsolete RFC2460.  (The IETF web site's search tool returns no
   results for "IPv6 standard".)

   A major gripe about the RFC series is its limitation to ASCII and its
   reliance on typewriter-friendly formatting.  Fortunately this is
   being worked on actively, so is not further discussed here.

   An occasional annoyance is that since the RFC series is long
   established and serves a very wide community of authors, it includes
   only some documents that are formally agreed statements of IETF rough
   consensus and even fewer that are formally agreed statements of IETF
   rough consensus about proposed standards or best current practice.
   The IETF has preferred to maintain a distinction between proposed
   standards and Internet standards, which means that there are even
   fewer RFCs designated as Internet standards.  An attempt to fix that

Carpenter               Expires December 8, 2018                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            Request for Comments                 June 2018

   particular problem by reducing the number and hence complexity of the
   categories [RFC6410] has not appeared to make significant
Show full document text