[HN Gopher] The "simple" 38 step journey to getting an RFC
___________________________________________________________________
The "simple" 38 step journey to getting an RFC
Author : greyface-
Score : 36 points
Date : 2024-12-05 11:53 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.benjojo.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.benjojo.co.uk)
| petercooper wrote:
| Every post this guy writes is illuminating - strongly recommend
| checking out his archive if you like digging into the weeds.
| rediguanayum wrote:
| +1. I've written one non-controversial RFC, and this is exactly
| it. What's missing is if the area you're working in
| controversial or has many, many stakeholders. For example of
| this just look at the DMARCbis last call happening now. There
| apparently is an art form to getting controversial work
| published by the IETF. It can by garnering a lot of support,
| but few well meaning voices can sink that effort as well.
| Working for a big tech company can hamper your efforts as well
| as some of those well meaning activists don't like big tech. I
| feel that work sponsored by small and medium sized companies
| has the best shot of actually happening.
| convolvatron wrote:
| Missing from this discussion is that once you identify a WG that
| might possibly be a good host for your work, you should really
| spend some time lurking on the mailing list and understand what
| efforts they already have, and more importantly what their agenda
| is. They have a trajectory, and while the WG might consider
| proposals technically within their charter, it helps if this
| draft is sympathetic and not redundant with work that's ongoing.
| ucarion wrote:
| I didn't know RFCs are being written with xml2rfc directly
| anymore; I was under the impression most work was now happening
| through https://github.com/cabo/kramdown-rfc, which lets you
| hand-write markdown instead of hand-writing XML.
|
| And then https://github.com/martinthomson/i-d-template, though a
| bit elaborate, does automate a lot of IETF stuff, including use
| of kramdown-rfc.
| science4sail wrote:
| How crazy and bureaucratic the Internet has grown!
|
| RFC #1 was basically a one-pager: https://www.rfc-
| archive.org/getrfc?rfc=1#gsc.tab=0
|
| RFC #371 was literally a conference advertisement:
| https://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc?rfc=371#gsc.tab=0
| thih9 wrote:
| There is even a "List of April Fools' Day RFCs" article on
| wikipedia:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_Request_f...
| EternalFury wrote:
| If RFCs were RFCs, it would be easier.
|
| But in history, RFCs became loose or strict standards. From that
| day on, everyone has tried have to their own RFC stamped; because
| there's an economic advantage to being the standard bearer.
|
| So, the process has become more and more convoluted to avoid
| having as many "standards" as there are interested parties.
|
| Steve Crocker and Jon Postel must be laughing at us.
| tuveson wrote:
| Step 1: write an RFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRF
| RFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFC
|
| Step 2: write an RFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRF
| RFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFRFC
|
| ...and so on
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-05 23:00 UTC)