Wikipedia>Kvng: closing, no consensus

2021-12-23T23:37:51Z

closing, no consensus

New page

{{short description|Publication of the development and standards for the Internet}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=April 2019}}
{{Self reference|For the Wikipedia process, see [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment]].}}

A '''Request for Comments''' ('''RFC''') is a publication in a series, from the principal technical development and standards-setting bodies for the [[Internet]], most prominently the [[Internet Engineering Task Force]] (IETF). An RFC is authored by individuals or groups of engineers and [[computer scientist]]s in the form of a [[memorandum]] describing methods, behaviors, research, or innovations applicable to the working of the Internet and Internet-connected systems. It is submitted either for [[peer review]] or to convey new concepts, information, or, occasionally, engineering humor.<ref name=":0">{{cite IETF |title=A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers |rfc=1149 |last=Waitzman |first=David |date=April 1, 1990 |publisher=[[Internet Engineering Task Force|IETF]] |access-date=March 29, 2017 }}</ref>

The IETF adopts some of the proposals published as RFCs as [[Internet Standard]]s. However, many RFCs are informational or experimental in nature and are not standards.<ref>{{cite IETF |title=Not All RFCs are Standards |rfc=1796 |last1=Huitema |first1=Christian |author-link1=Christian Huitema |last2=Postel |first2=Jon |author-link2=Jon Postel |last3=Crocker |first3=Steve |author-link3=Steve Crocker |date=April 1995 |publisher=[[Internet Engineering Task Force|IETF]] |access-date=May 15, 2018 }}</ref> The RFC system was invented by [[Steve Crocker]] in 1969 to help record unofficial notes on the development of [[ARPANET]]. RFCs have since become official documents of Internet [[Specification (technical standard)|specifications]], [[communications protocol]]s, procedures, and events.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ia_rfc.htm |title=RFC's, Internet Request For Comments |publisher=Livinginternet.com |access-date=April 3, 2012}}</ref> According to Crocker, the documents "shape the Internet's inner workings and have played a significant role in its success", but are not widely known outside the community.<ref name=nytimes>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07crocker.html?_r=1&em |title=Stephen D. Crocker, ''How the Internet Got Its Rules'', The New York Times, 6 April 2009 |work=Nytimes.com |date= April 7, 2009|access-date=April 3, 2012}}</ref>

Outside of the Internet community, other documents also called ''requests for comments'' have been published in [[Federal government of the United States|U.S. Federal government]] work, such as the [[National Highway Traffic Safety Administration]].<ref>[https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/01/16/2018-00519/notice-and-request-for-comments Notice and Request for Comments]'', in ''[[Federal Register]]'' (January 16, 2018).</ref>

==History==
The inception of the RFC format occurred in 1969 as part of the seminal [[ARPANET]] project.<ref name=nytimes/> Today, it is the official publication channel for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the [[Internet Architecture Board]] (IAB), and{{snd}} to some extent{{snd}} the global community of computer network researchers in general.

The authors of the first RFCs [[Typewriter|typewrote]] their work and circulated [[Hard copy|hard copies]] among the [[Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency|ARPA]] researchers. Unlike the modern RFCs, many of the early RFCs were actual Requests for Comments and were titled as such to avoid sounding too declarative and to encourage discussion.<ref>Hafner, Katie; Lyon, Matthew (1996). Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet.</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |title=Meet the man who invented the instructions for the Internet |url=https://www.wired.com/2012/05/steve-crocker/ |magazine=Wired |access-date=December 18, 2018|date=May 18, 2012 |last1=Metz |first1=Cade }}</ref> The RFC leaves questions open and is written in a less formal style. This less formal style is now typical of [[Internet Draft]] documents, the precursor step before being approved as an RFC.

In December 1969, researchers began distributing new RFCs via the newly operational ARPANET. RFC{{nbsp}}1, titled "Host Software", was written by [[Steve Crocker]] of the [[University of California, Los Angeles]] (UCLA), and published on April 7, 1969.<ref>{{cite document |url=https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1 |title=RFC{{nbsp}}1 |first=Steve |last=Crocker |date=April 7, 1969}}</ref> Although written by Steve Crocker, the RFC had emerged from an early [[working group]] discussion between Steve Crocker, Steve Carr, and [[Jeff Rulifson]].

In RFC 3, which first defined the RFC series, Crocker started attributing the RFC series to the Network Working Group. Rather than being a formal committee, it was a loose association of researchers interested in the ARPANET project. In effect, it included anyone who wanted to join the meetings and discussions about the project.

Many of the subsequent RFCs of the 1970s also came from UCLA, because UCLA is one of the first of what were [[Interface Message Processor]]s (IMPs) on ARPANET. The [[Augmentation Research Center]] (ARC) at [[SRI International|Stanford Research Institute]], directed by [[Douglas Engelbart]], is another of the four first of what were ARPANET [[Node (networking)|nodes]] and the source of early RFCs. The ARC became the first network information center ([[InterNIC]]), which was managed by [[Elizabeth J. Feinler]] to distribute the RFCs along with other network information.<ref>{{cite journal |title= The Network Information Center and its Archives |journal= Annals of the History of Computing |author= Elizabeth J. Feinler |date= July–September 2010 |volume= 32 |issue=3 |pages= 83–89 |doi= 10.1109/MAHC.2010.54 |s2cid= 206443021 |author-link= Elizabeth J. Feinler }}</ref> From 1969 until 1998, [[Jon Postel]] served as the RFC [[editing|editor]]. On his death in 1998, his obituary was published as RFC 2468.

Following the expiration of the original ARPANET contract with the U.S. federal government, the Internet Society, acting on behalf of the IETF, contracted with the Networking Division of the [[University of Southern California]] (USC) [[Information Sciences Institute]] (ISI) to assume the editorship and publishing responsibilities under the direction of the IAB.
Sandy Ginoza joined USC/ISI in 1999 to work on RFC editing, and Alice Hagens in 2005.<ref>{{cite news |title= RFC Editor in Transition: Past, Present, and Future |author= Leslie Daigle |publisher= Cisco Systems |date= March 2010 |work= The Internet Protocol Journal |volume= 13 |number=1 |url= http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_13-1/131_rfc.html |access-date= August 17, 2011 }}</ref>
[[Bob Braden]] took over the role of RFC project lead, while [[Joyce K. Reynolds]] continued to be part of the team until October 13, 2006.

In July 2007, ''streams'' of RFCs were defined, so that the editing duties could be divided. IETF documents came from IETF working groups or submissions sponsored by an IETF area director from the [[Internet Engineering Steering Group]]. The IAB can publish its own documents. A research stream of documents comes from the [[Internet Research Task Force]] (IRTF), and an independent stream from other outside sources.<ref>{{cite IETF |title=The RFC Series and RFC Editor |rfc=4844 |last=Daigle |first=Leslie |date=July 2007 |publisher=[[Internet Engineering Task Force|IETF]] }}</ref> A new model was proposed in 2008, refined, and published in August 2009, splitting the task into several roles,<ref>{{cite IETF |title=RFC Editor Model (Version 1) |rfc=5620 |last=Kolkman |first=Olaf |date=August 2009 |publisher=[[Internet Engineering Task Force|IETF]] }}</ref> including the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG). The model was updated in 2012.<ref>{{cite IETF |title=RFC Editor Model (Version 2) |rfc=6635 |last1=Kolkman |first1=Olaf |last2=Halpern |first2=Joel |date=June 2012 |publisher=[[Internet Engineering Task Force|IETF]] }}</ref> The streams were also refined in December 2009, with standards defined for their style.<ref name="rfc5741">{{cite IETF |title=RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates |rfc=5741 |last1=Daigle |first1=Leslie |last2=Kolkman |first2=Olaf |date=December 2009 |publisher=[[Internet Engineering Task Force|IETF]] }}</ref> In January 2010 the '''RFC Editor''' function was moved to a contractor, Association Management Solutions, with Glenn Kowack serving as interim series editor.<ref>{{cite web |title= RFC Editor Transition Announcement |author= Glenn Kowack |date= January 7, 2010 |url= http://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=7324&tid=1263251951 |archive-date=2011-06-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629132754/https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=7324&tid=1263251951}}</ref> In late 2011, Heather Flanagan was hired as the permanent RFC Series Editor. Also at that time, an RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) was created.<ref>{{cite web |title= The RFC Series Editor and the Series Reorganization |author= RFC Editor|url= //www.rfc-editor.org/rse/ |access-date= April 5, 2013 }}</ref>

Requests for Comments were originally produced in non-[[Reflowable document|reflowable]] text format. In August 2019 the format was changed so that new documents can be viewed optimally in devices with varying display sizes.<ref>[https://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/format-faq/ RFC Format Change FAQ]</ref>

==Production and versioning==
The RFC Editor assigns each RFC a [[serial number]]. Once assigned a number and published, an RFC is never rescinded or modified; if the document requires amendments, the authors publish a revised document. Therefore, some RFCs supersede others; the superseded RFCs are said to be ''deprecated'', ''obsolete'', or ''obsoleted by'' the superseding RFC. Together, the serialized RFCs compose a continuous historical record of the evolution of Internet standards and practices. The RFC process is documented in RFC 2026 (''The Internet Standards Process, Revision 3'').<ref name="RFC Index">{{cite web
|url= //www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index2.html
|title= ''RFC Index''
|access-date= May 26, 2008
|date= May 25, 2008
|publisher= RFC Editor
}}</ref>

The RFC production process differs from the [[standardization]] process of formal standards organizations such as [[International Organization for Standardization]] (ISO). Internet technology experts may submit an [[Internet Draft]] without support from an external institution. Standards-track RFCs are published with approval from the IETF, and are usually produced by experts participating in [[IETF Working Group]]s, which first publish an Internet Draft. This approach facilitates initial rounds of peer review before documents mature into RFCs.{{cn|date=April 2018}}

The RFC tradition of pragmatic, experience-driven, after-the-fact standards authorship accomplished by individuals or small working groups can have important advantages{{clarify|date=April 2018}} over the more formal, committee-driven process typical of ISO and national standards bodies.{{cn|date=April 2018}}

Most RFCs use a common set of terms such as "MUST" and "NOT RECOMMENDED" (as defined by RFC 2119 and RFC 8174), [[augmented Backus–Naur form]] (ABNF) (RFC 5234) as a meta-language, and simple text-based formatting, in order to keep the RFCs consistent and easy to understand.<ref name="RFC Index" />

===Sub-series===
The RFC series contains three sub-series for [[Internet Engineering Task Force|IETF]] RFCs: BCP, FYI, and STD. Best Current Practice (BCP) is a sub-series of mandatory IETF RFCs not on standards track. For Your Information (FYI) is a sub-series of informational RFCs promoted by the IETF as specified in RFC 1150 (FYI 1). In 2011, RFC 6360 obsoleted FYI 1 and concluded this sub-series. Standard (STD) used to be the third and highest maturity level of the IETF standards track specified in RFC 2026 (BCP 9). In 2011 RFC 6410 (a new part of BCP 9) reduced the standards track to two maturity levels.{{cn|date=April 2021}}

===Streams===
There are four streams of RFCs: [[Internet Engineering Task Force|IETF]], [[Internet Research Task Force|IRTF]], [[Internet Architecture Board|IAB]], and ''independent submission''.<ref name=IndepSub>{{cite web
|url=https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/
|title= Independent Submissions
|access-date= January 5, 2018
|publisher= RFC Editor
}}</ref> Only the IETF creates BCPs and RFCs on the standards track. An ''independent submission'' is checked by the [[Internet Engineering Steering Group|IESG]] for conflicts with IETF work; the quality is assessed by an ''independent submission editorial board''. In other words, IRTF and ''independent '' RFCs are supposed to contain relevant info or experiments for the Internet at large not in conflict with IETF work; compare RFC 4846, RFC 5742, and RFC 5744.{{cn|date=April 2021}}

==Obtaining RFCs==
{{refimprove section|date=April 2021}}
{| class="floatright" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 1en; caption-side: bottom;"
| bgcolor=#000000 |<div style="color:#33FF33; font-size: 60%">
RFC 2046 Media Types November 1996

A. Collected Grammar .................................... 43

1. Introduction

The first document in this set, RFC 2045, defines a number of header
fields, including Content-Type. The Content-Type field is used to
specify the nature of the data in the body of a MIME entity, by
giving media type and subtype identifiers, and by providing auxiliary
information that may be required for certain media types. After the
</div>
|-
|+ align=bottom |<small>{{IETF RFC|2046}}, which defines the text/plain [[MIME type]], is itself a plain text.</small>
|}
The official source for RFCs on the [[World Wide Web]] is the [//www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html RFC Editor]. Almost any published RFC can be retrieved via a [[Uniform Resource Locator|URL]] of the form <nowiki>http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5000.txt</nowiki>, shown for RFC 5000.

Every RFC is submitted as plain [[ASCII]] text and is published in that form, but may also be available in other [[file format|formats]].

For easy access to the metadata of an RFC, including abstract, keywords, author(s), publication date, errata, status, and especially later updates, the RFC Editor site offers a search form with many features. A redirection sets some efficient parameters, example: [[rfc:5000]].{{cn|date=April 2021}}

The official [[International Standard Serial Number]] (ISSN) of the RFC series is 2070–1721.<ref name="rfc5741"/>

==Status==
Not all RFCs are standards.<ref>{{cite web
|title=Are all RFCs Internet standards documents?
|url=https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#allstds
|access-date= March 16, 2018
|publisher= RFC Editor
}}</ref><ref>
{{cite IETF |title=Not All RFCs are Standards |rfc=1796 |last1=Huitema |first1=Christian |author-link1=Christian Huitema |last2=Postel |first2=Jon |author-link2=Jon Postel |last3=Crocker |first3=Steve |author-link3=Steve Crocker |date=April 1995 |publisher=[[Internet Engineering Task Force|IETF]] |quote= ... each RFC has a status…: Informational, Experimental, or Standards Track (Proposed Standard, Draft Standard, Internet Standard), or Historic. }}
</ref> Each RFC is assigned a designation with regard to status within the Internet standardization process. This status is one of the following: ''Informational'', ''Experimental'', ''Best Current Practice'', ''Standards Track'', or ''Historic''.

Each RFC is static; if the document is changed, it is submitted again and assigned a new RFC number.{{cn|date=April 2018}}

===Standards Track===
{{Main article|Internet Standard#Internet Standards}}
Standards-track documents are further divided into ''Proposed Standard'' and ''Internet Standard'' documents.<ref name="rfc6410">{{cite IETF |title=Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels |rfc=6410 |last1=Housley |first1=Russell |last2=Crocker |first2=Dave |last3=Burger |first3=Eric |date=October 2011 |publisher=[[Internet Engineering Task Force|IETF]] }}</ref>

Only the IETF, represented by the [[Internet Engineering Steering Group]] (IESG), can approve [[Internet standard|standards-track]] RFCs.

If an RFC becomes an Internet Standard (STD), it is assigned an STD number but retains its RFC number. The definitive list of Internet Standards is the Official Internet Protocol Standards. Previously STD 1 used to maintain a snapshot of the list.<ref>RFC 7100 Retirement of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" Summary Document</ref>

When an Internet Standard is updated, its STD number stays the same, now referring to a new RFC or set of RFCs. A given Internet Standard, STD ''n'', may be RFCs ''x'' and ''y'' at a given time, but later the same standard may be updated to be RFC ''z'' instead. For example, in 2007 RFC 3700 was an Internet Standard—STD 1—and in May 2008 it was replaced with RFC 5000, so RFC 3700 changed to ''Historic'', RFC 5000 became an Internet Standard, and {{As of|2008|05|lc=on}} STD 1 is RFC 5000. {{As of|2013|12|lc=on}} RFC 5000 is replaced by RFC 7100, updating RFC 2026 to no longer use STD 1.

(Best Current Practices work in a similar fashion; BCP ''n'' refers to a certain RFC or set of RFCs, but which RFC or RFCs may change over time).

===Informational===
An ''informational'' RFC can be nearly anything from [[April Fools' Day RFC|April 1 jokes]] to widely recognized essential RFCs like [[Domain Name System]] Structure and Delegation (RFC 1591). Some informational RFCs formed the <abbr title="For Your Information">FYI</abbr> sub-series.

===Experimental===
An ''experimental'' RFC can be an IETF document or an individual submission to the RFC Editor. A draft is designated experimental if it is unclear the proposal will work as intended or unclear if the proposal will be widely adopted. An experimental RFC may be promoted to standards track if it becomes popular and works well.<ref>{{Citation |url=//www.ietf.org/tao.html |title=The Tao of IETF |chapter=7.5. Informational and Experimental RFCs |chapter-url=//www.ietf.org/tao.html#rfc.section.6.5 |access-date=November 26, 2017}}</ref>

===Best Current Practice===
The [[Best Current Practice]] subseries collects administrative documents and other texts which are considered as official rules and not only ''informational'', but which do not affect ''over the wire data''. The border between standards track and BCP is often unclear. If a document only affects the Internet Standards Process, like BCP 9,<ref>{{cite IETF |title=The Internet Standards Process – Revision 3 |bcp=9 |last=Bradner |first=Scott O. |author-link=Scott Bradner |date=October 1996 |publisher=[[Internet Engineering Task Force|IETF]] |access-date=October 25, 2017 }}</ref> or IETF administration, it is clearly a BCP. If it only defines rules and regulations for [[Internet Assigned Numbers Authority]] (IANA) registries it is less clear; most of these documents are BCPs, but some are on the standards track.

The BCP series also covers technical recommendations for how to practice Internet standards; for instance, the recommendation to use source filtering to make [[Denial of Service attack|DoS attack]]s more difficult (RFC 2827: "''Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing''") is [//tools.ietf.org/html/bcp38 BCP 38].

===Historic===
A ''historic'' RFC is one that the technology defined by the RFC is no longer recommended for use, which differs from "Obsoletes" header in a replacement RFC. For example, RFC 821 ([[SMTP]]) itself is obsoleted by various newer RFCs, but SMTP itself is still "current technology", so it is not in "Historic" status.<ref>{{cite web
|url= https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html
|title= IESG Statement on Designating RFCs as Historic
|access-date= April 14, 2016
|date= July 20, 2014
|publisher= IETF
}}</ref> However, since [[Border Gateway Protocol|BGP version 4]] has entirely superseded earlier BGP versions, the RFCs describing those earlier versions, such as RFC 1267, have been designated historic.

===Unknown===
Status ''unknown'' is used for some very old RFCs, where it is unclear which status the document would get if it were published today. Some of these RFCs would not be published at all today; an early RFC was often just that: a simple Request for Comments, not intended to specify a protocol, administrative procedure, or anything else for which the RFC series is used today.{{cn|date=April 2018}}

==Copyright==
The general rule is that original authors (or their employers, if their employment conditions so stipulate) retain copyright unless they make an explicit transfer of their rights.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://trustee.ietf.org/about/faq/#reproducing-rfcs|title=Reproducing RFCs|publisher=IETF Trust|access-date=2021-08-12}}</ref>

An independent body, the IETF Trust, holds the copyright for some RFCs and for all others it is granted a license by the authors that allows it to reproduce RFCs.<ref>{{Cite IETF |title=Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust |rfc=5378 | |last1=Bradner |first1=Scott |last2=Contreras |first2=Jorge |date=November 2008 |publisher=[[Internet Engineering Task Force|IETF]]}}</ref> The [[Internet Society]] is referenced on many RFCs prior to RFC4714 as the copyright owner, but it transferred its rights to the IETF Trust.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://trustee.ietf.org/about/faq/#copyright|title=Reproducing RFCs|publisher=IETF Trust|access-date=2021-08-13}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[April Fools' Day RFC]]
* [[Best Current Practice]]
* [[Internet Experiment Note]]
* [[List of RFCs]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
* [//www.rfc-editor.org/ RFC Editor]
* [//www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html RFC Database]
* [//www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php RFC Errata]
* [//www.rfc-editor.org/rfcfaq.html RFC Frequently Asked Questions]
* [//www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index2.html RFC Index] (text)
* [//www.rfc-editor.org/search/standards.php Official Internet Protocol Standards]
* [//www.ietf.org/rfc.html IETF's RFC page]
* [//tools.ietf.org/rfc/ RFC Index] (HTML) With the text of each RFC, also mentions what other RFCs this one "updates" or is "updated by".

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Request for Comments| ]]
[[Category:Computer-related introductions in 1969]]

Request for Comments - Revision history

Richardpruen: 1 revision imported

Wikipedia>Kvng: closing, no consensus

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:33, 2 January 2022
(No difference)