How IETF Protocols are Definition?

Abdussalam Baryun <> Fri, 22 June 2012 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FFF521F850C for <>; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:23:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ilN3tFi5gcOR for <>; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C0521F850B for <>; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so1236929vbb.31 for <>; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=pctuyfiAkmC/VUg2VeAsSn0J5pRhi5N4y1fm651z9NQ=; b=HIQDamBe9timEmXDOhRtKXsQPYvKbLb7FJaY/WMLxFC+HJiPXfwEgmn6vSNPvflE+e NilguGt7hybLijc2iwLexBRyF7Kqb96YkF2vcbFRYUZM6X3nfq/y+/6tvfFKTaKj8DjP hgERinFszZAn2x4J8/ITNIYFRyOFypV7GXLtI5CPIlaEcWRj1tO8e0P2A7dcXc0fjk6b vUy5VFvvE5Mx5dk99N3A1GFvbFWJ0nL+vkBAXZhUYsvW1vQBJvzG8+iTd9Tf/xvaLiGB zo/6JvIJiY0R0OAhq8jmrXD09/KiFUQabqX3K3Oq6zho94yC42EciTrUeijtr2WGd46z S9BA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id bw16mr1466503vdb.129.1340400181709; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 23:23:01 +0200
Message-ID: <>
Subject: How IETF Protocols are Definition?
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
To: ietf <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 21:23:05 -0000

Hi All,
Previos subject: Protocol Definition
Change the subject so we can focus on the reality of IETF purpose>
The thing is that the definition has been discussed on the list and
they were very good overall. However, the first question is not
defining but how our IETF-WGs define protocols. If you cannot find a
definition then write a RFC about the definition and you will notice
that it will not pass through until you define it in the limits that I
tried to define.

There are RFC that were/are in IETF that didn't mention there
applicability statement or use cases, which I think is very important
is designing any protocol as:
1- what was it designed for? and  2- how will it be used?
But thoes RFCs/protocols are for the Internet network, so that is why
IETF is involved. I don't think that IETF is standardizing protocols
that are/can not used in Internet network.

Therefore, all protocols/RFCs in IETF SHOULD be produced in consistent
with IETF purpose, and RECOMMENDED to define its
use-case/applicability. However, it will be nice to think to write a
draft of defining *IETF protocols and technologies*, which I may do in
future interested, because this thread is going long :)

Thanks, Donald and Tony for your points/comments, but we may see the
RFCs that update your pointed-RFCs and in the future it may be updated
as well to invision IETF purpose.


On 6/22/12, Donald Eastlake <> wrote:
> How about RFC 1661.
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Tony Finch <> wrote:
>> Randy Bush <> wrote:
>>> > All protocols in IETF are based on the Internet or/and the IP.
>>> what a laugh.  try, for example, RFC 826
>> Perhaps a better example is RFC 6325.
>> Tony.
>> --
>> f.anthony.n.finch  <>
>> Cromarty: Northeasterly backing westerly, 5 or 6. Moderate or rough.
>> Occasional rain. Moderate or poor.