What's the process for submitting RFCs? And how do they pick which joke RFC they'll publish? That's a meeting I'd like to be a fly on the wall of
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
1209 points (98.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43989 readers
1328 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
For "real" RFCs that aren't Apr 1st jokes, there's an independent submissions track for the public to write Internet-Drafts and then submit them into the review process.
With the joke RFCs, they get emailed straight to the editor at least two weeks beforehand. I'm not privy to the selection meeting, but I expect it's fun.
Are you by any chance, British?
Did the predilection for tea give me away?
load more comments
(1 replies)
We're there any early internet standards you were super bullish on at the time that didn't get picked up? In retrospect, if it had been adopted do you think it would have had the impact you were hoping for
That's a tough one: most standards are codified as such because they're already seeing wide use. The major example of one that's been worked the other way around is IPv6: it's been a standard for a very long time, and still doesn't seem to be seeing adoption.
Of course, I wouldn't say I was bullish on IPv6. 32 bits is enough for anyone, right.
I loved sharing this with my senior who hadn't seen it before, and it gave our small team a Ggod chuckle one afternoon. Thanks for your creation.
With the absence of a crystal ball, but with excellent inner knowledge, what future standards could you see being implemented in the next 10 years for internet?
As it turns out, one of the Apr 1st RFCs for this year covers AI Sarcasm Detection, but I can see more serious protocols arising for the transfer of AI model data and/or training procedures in the coming years.
I'd also hope ActivityPub reaches Internet Standard level, though it may fall outside the IETF's scope of operations.
Iβm actually going to that conference! Whatβs the title of your talk? Iβll be sure to attend it!
Excellent. I'm on Stage 4 on the Thursday afternoon: "Brewing Tea Over The Internet".
Should be fun times, see you there.
What code should be used if we are expecting something to be a teapot? In this scenario it seems a 4XX is inappropriate because there is no error
load more comments
(1 replies)
You can unilaterally create another status code. What do you create?
Wasn't there a new HTTP action recently proposed for "This is a JSON RPC request that we've convinced ourselves is actually REST and we've been using POST and someone finally pointed out that that was stupid"?
Not a new status code but still vaguely amusing.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Was RFC 7168 written with Captain Picard's tea Earl Gray, hot in mind? If not, are follow up modifications planned?
load more comments
(1 replies)
A new RFC for IPv7. It's just IPv4 with an extra octet. Yes or no?
I don't think the extra address space of IPv6 is the problem holding back its adoption, so "IPv4 with another octet" would likely run into the same issues.
Not that it's a bad idea, it's just an idea that's unlikely to catch on.
Is the internet still kept in Big Ben?
Yes, unless Jen needs to borrow it for a presentation.
No question, I just want to thank you for being the type of person that would do this and thank you again for actually doing it. The world is a fun place. I like it.
Has anyone implemented it in a physical device?
e.g. RFC3514 (an 'evil' flag you can set in malicious packets so a firewall knows to drop them) was actually used by a few people to see what would happen, with interesting results.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Did you author any other standards and how high is the chance of a proposal being approved if you don't have any accepted proposal yet?
7168 is my only foray into writing an Internet Standard RFC. If you have a good idea for one, you should definitely get in touch with the RFC Editors; I found them very approachable and willing to work with my idea, moulding it into a document that's compliant to their (admittedly old-timey 60's) documentation standards.
I just found out about this on Brodie Robertsonβs yt channel! I am not a teapot btw!!
Glad to hear it, you should walk around with a HTTP 418 hat so more people know you're not a teapot.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
How do you feel about the internet being "stuck" with an MTU of 1500?
This is kinda the problem with widely deployed standards like TCP/IPv4: if you have even one device out there that's on the "old" standard, it won't be able to talk under a hypothetical new standard like IPv6 or TCP-with-huge-packets. And there are a lot more than one device out there that would be cut off.
As I understand it, the big pipes have very large MTUs now, and the edge routers cut up the packets for further transport. That's probably the only way we can realistically go forward.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Do you think this is the dot com bubble 2.0
If anything, we're into the "bust" part of the bubble: layoffs have been coming in waves all year, and are continuing. There were a whole bunch of posts over on Mastodon just a couple of weeks ago, at end of quarter, where people were laid off and looking for work.