Re: I need your "good" RFCs

Michael Thomas <> Thu, 11 February 2021 22:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF73D3A0CFA for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 14:02:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.751
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oBecypAZDqK8 for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 14:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B56F3A0CF6 for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 14:02:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id my11so5257070pjb.1 for <>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 14:02:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=fluffulence; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=C4dgUm1aJoK7l9NUB/uquAu9WkFpUcX+FD+Xkx6Mrkc=; b=mAbn2o01CtKHPIGk1ikkBD6kKiUkX2zUAN7bnfT10mldNdemh3tHcKTuDWt8sYzGKL H0KvF2StmEejuHsNRQfGq0gcGWUE0e8NbFQIi/9k1s6c3CSoC8DuDFB2GUgSN7lOl5qi YWPsfWsrHoKNKFEwycInxWFIbmthyUl2IyPS0bdrz8t/bCZc4Ai0+vW3Wynsa07vLOv0 tATlS7p+tkByW3Mos/OqNcfMGk78Xs0wUC8TGHEXTt+bNmvjQb+OSsfkvyVq3U0hf5SE 8/N9HvoX3AomnN6jOwsRbUfkXsCzLB6TfyQa689TlD859BTKDRAH0/N941wZgj9SGnn0 KEtg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=C4dgUm1aJoK7l9NUB/uquAu9WkFpUcX+FD+Xkx6Mrkc=; b=PN2XgyWqrWQ29zruV/A7kCz2QebB2Vi5dQRTXjzhL0MkwyRu8U8sIjHrjOxsfjBtH0 iV2T0uhJKtUDJ8jyCaA7UqxAOynCeNo1ps4DFNvfUCOcpk2tKb4QwcvunDtnGcRyHxFy TXbJM14lcMe3FYanbkPQDuG5VdSc6Uqf+hvF8TF5RcyzhHXZ+jiXkNjnLeFiw6wS4ylt cne1uhInaCLlRgYG4QcAjejV3WjzWN7Jvz8HErQryuyC9zTMSFExGf+US2RKWtECkmAH 1Diezx8JrdFBB/LpaW1TctvsABv3Q4RiMrkz60PDiixaHsnpPF7FSzu4su9+AbRRBSun wt3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533cT9bROxsJH6F2ntQGWej39sjUyH/WHqKJYVZ1orIp3kQoIz35 BFTy/rs2l2MdhWHWgC5o1oSS4jLg/ulyMg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx6CaH5cZlEvJmI3SLwnMW+ZM1U+pNwxSAgUV3QIXwyUMwCMVer1PlqBLuwLHu7ZT7t94mQdg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:578a:: with SMTP id g10mr5693482pji.74.1613080940929; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 14:02:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mike-mac.lan ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v31sm6933299pgl.76.2021. for <> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Feb 2021 14:02:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: I need your "good" RFCs
References: <>
From: Michael Thomas <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 14:02:18 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 22:02:24 -0000

On 2/11/21 1:51 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Good folks,
> I'm looking for people's favorite RFCs with respect to readability and
> understand-ability.  Do you have ones that have always impressed you as
> your favorites as how RFCs should be written to make their protocol/etc
> easily understood?  If so, send a note my way (ideally using this
> subject line).  I don't necessarily think you need to do a reply-all.
> [And yes, I recognize that this is a subjective ask, and everyone will
> have a different opinion as to "what is readable" and "what is
> understandable".  That's ok -- I'm asking for opinions and not facts].
Even though it's a bit self-serving, I think DKIM (rfc 4871) was pretty 
clear as it managed to get dozens of interoperable implementations. The 
ability to get interoperability without back knowledge or trawling the 
working group mailing list is a good sign that they are well written. 
Back in the day, IP and TCP RFC's were very easy to understand.