Talk:Request for Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Older discussions

An event in the Request for Comments article is an April 7 selected anniversary.

[edit] Important RFCs

It would be really nice if someone went through that list of "important" RFCs and added some information saying why each is important. If no-one does it soon, I'll do it... -- Timwi 22:59 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I presume by important you mean promenent and/or widely used ?
I am referring to the list with the heading "Here is the list of the most important RFCs:". -- Timwi 15:14 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Separate RFC articles merged here

Lots of RFC articles have been merged into this one. Angela did this but takes no blame for it. From VfD:

  • It appears as though all but the first of these has not been edited in quite a while (the first I made a complete sentence before deciding to list them here), if ever, and now are listed on the ancient pages list. They consist entirely of an external link and what appears to be a citation of the external link. I can only assume the topics are encyclopedic, but Wikipedia is not a depository of links. Tuf-Kat 03:23, Sep 24, 2003 (UTC)
  • Delete.Vancouverguy 03:30, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Merge the lot of them into RFC. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 15:56, Sep 24, 2003 (UTC)
  • Vote againt. They should be merged or redirected, which is good enough. -- Taku 21:59, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you have multiple "External Link" headers? Also, may I suggest that we have a separate "Links to RFC's" section for the links to actual RFC's, and not lump them in with the rest of the random external links? Finally, to make it easier to edit, we might want to have several sections of RFC links (titled something more imaginative than "Links to RFC's in the 1-1000 Range" :-). Noel 15:22, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There is a reason - I'm lazy. :) There were millions of the silly things so I just pasted them all in and redirected the originals here without actually trying to reformat them or make the article make sense. If you want to sort it out Noel, I would be very grateful. If not I will fix it at some point, but not today. Angela 19:49, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Well, I've taken a crack at it. It's a bizarre selection there, some of the more important ones are missing. While I was at it, I switched to a common entry format. If someone's really energetic, they can go fix all the [RFC-foo] forwards so they link to the relevant sub-section here.
In retrospect, it might have been better to leave the individual pages (since if we add all the important ones, this page is going to get really long), and add a sentence or two to each saying what each one covers. Oh well, that's what I get for not reading VfD. Noel 21:23, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
You could always revert them all. Actually, as it was my fault, I should probably be the one responsible for undoing it. I don't mind if you decide that is the best option. Anyhow, you've done an excellent job on it so far.
Regarding the redirects, you can't redirect to specific sections yet but DanKeshet has submitted it as a feature request at Sourceforge. Angela 23:04, Oct 1, 2003 (UTC)
Nah, it's not worth all the trouble to undo it. About the redirects, I thought we could pick out subsections. Maybe it's only in URL references to the Wiki, though. Noel 03:03, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Ok, if you're sure. Do you mean links or redirects? You can definitely link to subsections. I thought you meant #redirect[[Request for comment#foo]] - that wouldn't work. Angela 03:16, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure I don't want either of us wasting time putting them back! :-) Yes, I did originally mean redirect to subsections - I didn't know that didn't work. Noel 12:37, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Request for comments link

I don't understand why people keep removing the link to Wikipedia:Request for comments. It is very apropos and useful here. By comparison, VfD redirects to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Rfa redirects to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and so on; is it that unreasonable that RFC and Request for Comments should provide at least a link to the W:RfC page? Someone could well be seeking that page here. Also, cf. VFD. -- VV 23:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of "Foo"

I find it somewhat amusing that RFC 3092 (Etymology of "Foo") is listed among the most important RFCs... :) Fredrik 20:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Three-digit RFC numbers

Are three-digit RFCs supposed to be listed as RFC 0123 or as RFC 123? Both exist on the page. It's fine to do it either way, but some standard should be settled on. I vote for the second way, dropping the leading zero. Grendelkhan 03:05, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Another vote for dropping the leading zero. There are no leading zeros in the RFCs themselves. —Bkell 06:23, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
++dropping Guaka 22:25, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Joke RFC?

RFC 439 seems like a joke to me. But it dates January 21... Guaka 22:25, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's a joke; it appears to be an actual conversation between two artificial intelligence systems. Granted, it's entirely for entertainment value, but there's no restrictions on what RFCs can and cannot contain. —Bkell 05:56, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it is real - the two programs (Parry and the Doctor) really existed, and this is (AFAIK) what they really "said" to each other when hooked together. (I seem to recall that this was actually printed in Datamation, back when it was done.) Things weren't as formal that far back in time, and so you could get this kind of thing on dates other than April 1, something that might not happen now. Noel (talk) 02:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Added table and wikified

I wikified the RFC links (i.e., prefer RFC 1234 = RFC 1234 to [http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1234.txt RFC 1234] = RFC 1234) and added all the information to a table, which I feel is the proper way to present data repeated in a regular format. --Ardonik.talk() 02:09, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if RFC was wikified to Request for Comments, and the RFC number to the RFC text at ietf.org ? So readers could read general info on RFCs in the article. Apokrif 21:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the name

Perhaps someone should write why it's called Request for Comments, I have no idea, fo me it's a strange way to define a standard to calle it rfc. -- AzaToth 11:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History, basically. Back in the days of RFC 1, it was just some notes being passed back and forth among a small group of researchers. It has gradually become a lot more formal, but the name remains the same, mostly because it would be too confusing to change it. There are additional series now, STD and BCP, but RFC remains the one everyone knows. Noel (talk) 23:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've recently edited the article, I will add this in now (I imagine other people might want to know too). Noel (talk) 02:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to split the page

I think this is unwieldy, and hard to use in it current large size. I propose that we split it up, and create List of the most important RFCs and List of IETF RFCs as separate articles. Noel (talk) 02:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Or something. It takes up half the bloody page, and it's not terribly useful. We even have a smaller list higher up on the page. Exactly what use does the enormous RFC list serve? What does it do? If someone wants to know what RFC defines IMAP, they can go to IMAP and see it there, where it's apropos. This is inflating the page for no real purpose. I don't think the page should be split, I think it should be pared down. grendel|khan 17:14, 2005 May 6 (UTC)
Besides being big, it is misleading. Wikipedia should avoid labeling the status of documents (e.g. Proposed Standard) because it changes over time, and this is not a likely place that it will be updated when necessary. Just refer folks to the rfc-editor pages for the daily updates of current status. Adding the definitions of the status options would be a good addition to this page, though. --NealMcB July 3, 2005 04:16 (UTC)
Agreed. And it's a mounting problem—people continue to create new lists and expand old ones. Where does it end? Surely there are better ways to make this article a valuable resource. – Ringbang 15:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Random RFCs?

Why a list of "random RFCs"? Maybe "Key RFCs", or "Importent RFCs"? ~ mlk ✉♬ 03:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~

[edit] Imporant RFCs (again)

The list of "important RFC's" is still really long, and now that each entry links to the actual RFC, has much duplication with the later lengthy list of RFC's at the end of the article. I don't have the energy to do much about this at this point - I just spent a couple of hours going through the list of "important RFC's" and trying to weed out the obsolete/obscure ones, and making sure all the important ones were there. Noel 18:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Blast! 821 and 822 are listed as "obsoleted by 2821 and 2822", so I'm amazed to find that their status is "STANDARD" and not "HISTORIC". In general, I didn't list any RFC as "important" if it was listed as "obsoleted by RFC xxx". (In fact, I started off by adding those two, and later took them out when I found them listed as "obsoleted by".) Must be a temporary glitch in the system. Noel 03:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not a glitch, except in the sense that the IETF process doesn't quite make sense when a new version of a Standard protocol is introduced at a Proposed Standard level. Blame it on RFC 2026. Alvestrand 01:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest Public File on the Internet

I once tried to find the oldest public file on the internet and I came to the conclusion it was RFC 1 (filename '1') which I found on a university ftp with the timestamp of 7 April 1969. I can't seem to find this file anymore, does anyone know of it?

I just disproved my own theory when I read this at everything2.com: 'Crocker wrote the RFC late at night in his bathroom [on a piece of paper], so as to avoid awakening his roommates.' Looks like the file I found had a bogus filestamp.
It isn't a bogus timestamp, it's the date that it was written. It says the date that it was put into machine readable form near the bottom of the file. --P4ch3c0 00:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of RFCs removed

Yes, I removed all of the lists. I know there will be mixed reactions, but here is the rationale:

  1. The lists contravene Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files.
  2. The "External links" section contains several links to sites that categorize RFCs by subject, classification (BCP, Internet standard, etc.), and import. Also, some of the lists were just old reproductions of updated lists mirrored elsewhere.
  3. Wikipedia articles about technologies defined in RFCs already provide links to their respective RFCs; for centralized repositories, there are better resources (see also point 1).
  4. Linking to any RFCs in a list or tabular format invites others to expand the lists—and we've already seen where that leads us.
  5. If a particular RFC was pivotal in the history of the IETF and the concept of RFCs (e.g., RFC 1), it can be mentioned in the text. On submission, an inline reference in the form of "RFC #" is automatically parsed into a link to the official document.

– Ringbang 14:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki:Rfcurl

FYI: Maybe we could arrange a better link for RFC 4321 anywhere in plain text, see MediaWiki talk:Rfcurl. -- Omniplex 16:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Being an IMP?

The History section includes the phrase "because UCLA was one of the first Interface Message Processors (IMPs) on ARPANET.". Is that really correct usage of the term Interface Message Processor? It's my understanding that an IMP was the interface to the network, like a NIC is on a LAN. How about "because UCLA had one of the first IMPs on ARPANET"? JöG 20:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Talk%7ERequest_for_Comments_4b7b.html"