Recent searches
Search options
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.
@simontatham Nice. But damn, it doesn't fit into four lines.
@simontatham
Y'ee be reading the Irish building codes again?
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119 #rfc2119
"Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community" best title tbh
@simontatham my first thought is about Mastodon and Matrix
"HERE BE DRAGONS"
@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.
@anticomposite @simontatham tfw the IETF thought of your shitpost even before you did.
@can @anticomposite shitpost it may have been, but it's been a pretty popular one so far. Guess nobody else had seen RFC 6919 either!
@simontatham @anticomposite definitely funny! The fact that there's an actual RFC for it makes it even funnier imo
@simontatham @can @anticomposite
You've got some good ones that are still missing. Please submit a new rfc.
What I've always liked about RFC6919 is that for *every* so called "key word" it "standardises" it provides an actual example from an actual non-humorous RFC which uses that exact phrase.
Making fun of yourself the right way.
@anticomposite @simontatham
@wouter I had only read the abstract, but thanks to your note I had to read the whole thing. It's brilliant.
My favorite reference:
The phrase "MIGHT" conveys a requirement in an intentionally stealthy fashion, to facilitate product differentiation (cf. "COULD" above).For example: "In the case of audio and different "m" lines for different codecs, an implementation might decide to act as a mixer with the different incoming RTP sessions, which is the correct behavior."
I just adore that passive aggressive "... which is the correct behavior" and would love to hear the anecdote for why the editor snuck that in there and how many chairs were thrown during the meeting.
@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…
@
@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.
But is it normative standard, non-normative standard, a request for comments or recommendation? 
@simontatham just now realising those instructions explain how to interpret "must", "should", etc but not "are to" :) :) :)
@jackv even the IETF is subject to Hume's law.
@simontatham Sir, I hereby declare you have been selected as the winner of the Internet today.
@simontatham@hachyderm.io the lack of these terms in RFC 2119 should be submitted as an erratum (to RFC 2119)
@amyipdev @simontatham Mentioned up-thread is an RFC that adds to 2119; though it doesn't define these terms it does define MUST BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T, among others: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6919
@Two9A@hachyderm.io @simontatham@hachyderm.io this actually got designated as an experimental protocol? lolllll
@simontatham@hachyderm.io @Two9A@hachyderm.io true, but most jokes would be categorized under informational or other categories
@amyipdev @simontatham Mm, my own RFC from the year after 6919 is informational only and not in any protocol streams: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7168
I guess 6919 gets upgraded through association with a heavily-referenced document.
@Two9A@hachyderm.io @simontatham@hachyderm.io oh wait, you're the developer of HTCPCP-TEA? awesome!
@amyipdev @simontatham "Developer" is a strong word for it, but I'll take it.
The key words "WHAT", "DAMNIT", "GOOD GRIEF", "FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE", "RIDICULOUS", "BLOODY HELL", and "DIE IN A GREAT BIG CHEMICAL FIRE" in this memo are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
https://fanf2.user.srcf.net/hermes/doc/qsmtp/draft-fanf-wtf8.html#anchor2
@simontatham I'm stealing "wromantic". It gels nicely with "scareoused".
@tryst alas, I can't claim credit for actually inventing that word. That's lifted from Sellar & Yeatman's "1066 And All That", in its description of the English Civil War: the Cavalier side was described as "Wrong but Wromantic", and the Roundheads were "Right but Repulsive".
@simontatham @xssfox
See also RFC 6919 Further Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
@simontatham No, but really I would use "REQUIRED IN ORDER TO WORK AROUND EVERYONE ELSE'S BUGS" All. The. Time.
@simontatham You must be writing an SMTP server.
@simontatham The temp who was keeping that document in the shared directory quit, and we don't have his password, so..."do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law (until the first quarter of FY25).
@simontatham "Recommended but repulsive" describes so many things in software tbh
@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://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6919
@simontatham These look like “WORTHY” extensions to COBOL.
@simontatham@hachyderm.io THIS should be an RFC. xD
almost flawless. ;)
only thing i can think of missing is "AGAIN? DIDN'T WE KILL THIS ALREADY?"
@simontatham oh, so it's not just me
@simontatham Huh, so I'm NOT the only one who sees all that.
I also interpret half of the "SHOULD" as "DEPENDING ON WHICH SIDE OF THE <TABLE/> WARS YOU WERE ON"
@simontatham
Is anyone getting RULE 34 vibes from this, or is it just me?