Simon TathamDec 16, 2024
The 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.
Show threadAntiCompositeDec 16, 2024

@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://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.

IETF Datatracker
Show threadDwenius

@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…

@

Dec 17, 2024 at 4:01pmWeb
Show threadSimon TathamDec 17, 2024

@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.