jade harley :spinny_cat_trans::spinny_cat_pan:
Simon TathamThe key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED BUT REPULSIVE", "WRONG BUT WROMANTIC", "FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD", "NOBODY BOTHERS WITH THIS BIT", "SHOULDN'T REALLY BUT WE WON'T JUDGE", "REQUIRED IN ORDER TO WORK AROUND EVERYONE ELSE'S BUGS", "YOU DO YOU", and "OBVIOUSLY ABSURD BUT VERY COMMON FOR SOME REASON" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Dan Sugalski@simontatham Plus the ever popular "WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE WERE THINKING, IT WAS 3AM WE WERE EXTREMELY DRUNK AND THERE WAS ALSO A DONKEY WHICH WE SHALL NEVER SPEAK OF AGAIN"
@wordshaper a certain piece of software I regularly use, which shall remain nameless unless anyone else in this thread recognises it, currently has the official version number "wtf 11pm pub"
PulkoMandy@wordshaper @simontatham
Wasn't it a mouse?
"Mouse now present. 6.502 members represented.
[149-A94] Action Item for Landlord: Capture and exile the mouse that just fell out of the light fixture."
@pulkomandy @simontatham No, no, not the mouse. We still speak of the mouse. (I have heard the mouse is up for chairing the next round of the unicode committee but I dunno what its chances realistically are)
ARGVMI~1.PIFRelevant trope: Noodle Incident
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoodleIncident
@argv_minus_one oh no. Oh nonononono. That’s a tvtropes link. I know better than to click that — one mistaken tiny glance then you look up and see it’s Thursday and wonder what the hell happened.
Relevant trope: TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Life
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/JustForFun/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife
D2@argv_minus_one @wordshaper it’s funny because it’s true. Y’all enjoy Christmas / Hanukkah tomor…
Wait, why’s my computer say it’s the 28th?
Jyrgen N@simontatham Nice. But damn, it doesn't fit into four lines.
Private F. Seale@simontatham
Y'ee be reading the Irish building codes again?
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119 #rfc2119
Y'ee be reading the Irish building codes again?
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119 #rfc2119
Matt BK"Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community" best title tbh
Saphire Lattice@simontatham my first thought is about Mastodon and Matrix
infinite love ⴳ
julian
Morten Linderud"HERE BE DRAGONS"
AntiComposite@simontatham The key words "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T)", "SHOULD CONSIDER", "REALLY SHOULD NOT", "OUGHT TO", "WOULD PROBABLY", "MAY WISH TO", "COULD", "POSSIBLE", and "MIGHT" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 6919.
RFC 6919: Further Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
RFC 2119 defines a standard set of key words for describing requirements of a specification. Many IETF documents have found that these words cannot accurately capture the nuanced requirements of their specification. This document defines additional key words that can be used to address alternative requirements scenarios. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: The key words "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON\'T)", "SHOULD CONSIDER", "REALLY SHOULD NOT", "OUGHT TO", "WOULD PROBABLY", "MAY WISH TO", "COULD", "POSSIBLE", and "MIGHT" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 6919.
Pink@anticomposite @simontatham tfw the IETF thought of your shitpost even before you did.
@can @anticomposite shitpost it may have been, but it's been a pretty popular one so far. Guess nobody else had seen RFC 6919 either!
@simontatham @anticomposite definitely funny! The fact that there's an actual RFC for it makes it even funnier imo
Matthew Miller@simontatham @can @anticomposite
You've got some good ones that are still missing. Please submit a new rfc.
Tony 🇸🇪🌻🇺🇦
Wouter Verhelst@can
What I've always liked about RFC6919 is that for *every* so called "key word" it "standardises" it provides an actual example from an actual non-humorous RFC which uses that exact phrase.
Making fun of yourself the right way.
@anticomposite @simontatham
What I've always liked about RFC6919 is that for *every* so called "key word" it "standardises" it provides an actual example from an actual non-humorous RFC which uses that exact phrase.
Making fun of yourself the right way.
@anticomposite @simontatham
clacke: exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛@wouter I had only read the abstract, but thanks to your note I had to read the whole thing. It's brilliant.
My favorite reference:
The phrase "MIGHT" conveys a requirement in an intentionally stealthy fashion, to facilitate product differentiation (cf. "COULD" above).For example: "In the case of audio and different "m" lines for different codecs, an implementation might decide to act as a mixer with the different incoming RTP sessions, which is the correct behavior."
I just adore that passive aggressive "... which is the correct behavior" and would love to hear the anecdote for why the editor snuck that in there and how many chairs were thrown during the meeting.
Dwenius@anticomposite @EdG @simontatham Is there any form of humor more absolutely niche than IETF RFC jokes? Like these are for an audience of dozens…luckily we are all on Fedi.
I was actually online on the morning of April 1, 1990 when the canonical example, “RFC 1149 - A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers” dropped*, and it is deeply embedded in my headcanon Internet Timeline of Important Events. But I run into supposed industry professionals (even network and security admins!) who are completely unaware of this seminal document with alarming frequency.
(*) the standard has since updated twice, once to add Quality of Service and once to add IPv6 support. A real world implementation was only partially successful, as latency and packet loss were substantial. The whole protocol is nerdvana and the commitment to the bit is exemplary…
@
@dwenius @anticomposite @EdG avian carriers are all very well, but I think 418 I'm A Teapot is more iconic.
I proposed a 1st April RFC myself once, but it wasn't accepted. At the time SSH-2 was still considering a "none" cipher, for countries outlawing encryption: you wouldn't encrypt, but would still MAC, so the spooks could read but not hijack your session. I proposed adding the "rot13" cipher instead, to protect network-monitoring sysadmins from movie spoilers and distractingly juicy gossip.
Tor Lillqvist@simontatham Sir, I hereby declare you have been selected as the winner of the Internet today.
Amy (she/her/hers)@simontatham the lack of these terms in RFC 2119 should be submitted as an erratum (to RFC 2119)
Imran Nazar ~ عمران نزر@amyipdev @simontatham Mentioned up-thread is an RFC that adds to 2119; though it doesn't define these terms it does define MUST BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T, among others: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6919
RFC 6919: Further Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
RFC 2119 defines a standard set of key words for describing requirements of a specification. Many IETF documents have found that these words cannot accurately capture the nuanced requirements of their specification. This document defines additional key words that can be used to address alternative requirements scenarios. Authors who follow these guidelines should incorporate this phrase near the beginning of their document: The key words "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON\'T)", "SHOULD CONSIDER", "REALLY SHOULD NOT", "OUGHT TO", "WOULD PROBABLY", "MAY WISH TO", "COULD", "POSSIBLE", and "MIGHT" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 6919.
@Two9A @simontatham this actually got designated as an experimental protocol? lolllll
@simontatham @Two9A true, but most jokes would be categorized under informational or other categories
@amyipdev @simontatham Mm, my own RFC from the year after 6919 is informational only and not in any protocol streams: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7168
I guess 6919 gets upgraded through association with a heavily-referenced document.
@Two9A @simontatham oh wait, you're the developer of HTCPCP-TEA? awesome!
@amyipdev @simontatham "Developer" is a strong word for it, but I'll take it.
ciara@simontatham a terry davis like temple os word/phrase generator list of words
Tony FinchThe key words "WHAT", "DAMNIT", "GOOD GRIEF", "FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE", "RIDICULOUS", "BLOODY HELL", and "DIE IN A GREAT BIG CHEMICAL FIRE" in this memo are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
https://fanf2.user.srcf.net/hermes/doc/qsmtp/draft-fanf-wtf8.html#anchor2
Christian Huitema@fanf You MUST see RFC 6919 but I know you wont: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919
Tryst 🏴 🇮🇪 
@simontatham I'm stealing "wromantic". It gels nicely with "scareoused".
@tryst alas, I can't claim credit for actually inventing that word. That's lifted from Sellar & Yeatman's "1066 And All That", in its description of the English Civil War: the Cavalier side was described as "Wrong but Wromantic", and the Roundheads were "Right but Repulsive".
sabik@simontatham @xssfox
See also RFC 6919 Further Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
See also RFC 6919 Further Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
Brandon Jones@simontatham No, but really I would use "REQUIRED IN ORDER TO WORK AROUND EVERYONE ELSE'S BUGS" All. The. Time.
Dickon Hood@simontatham You must be writing an SMTP server.
Taylor Jessen@simontatham The temp who was keeping that document in the shared directory quit, and we don't have his password, so..."do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law (until the first quarter of FY25).
Jonathan Yu@simontatham "Recommended but repulsive" describes so many things in software tbh
TerrorBite 🦁@simontatham The key words "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T)", "SHOULD CONSIDER", "REALLY SHOULD NOT", "OUGHT TO", "WOULD PROBABLY", "MAY WISH TO", "COULD", "POSSIBLE", and "MIGHT" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 6919. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919
6x6@simontatham These look like “WORTHY” extensions to COBOL.
Sigma@simontatham THIS should be an RFC. xD
fanf42@simontatham oh, so it's not just me 😅
Chris Subagio@simontatham Huh, so I'm NOT the only one who sees all that.
I also interpret half of the "SHOULD" as "DEPENDING ON WHICH SIDE OF THE <TABLE/> WARS YOU WERE ON"
Bruce Heerssen 
@simontatham
Is anyone getting RULE 34 vibes from this, or is it just me?
Is anyone getting RULE 34 vibes from this, or is it just me?
Adeliehaha, 2119 was written by "sob[at]harvard[dot]edu," that makes me laugh.
Sean Boots