Re: [rfc-i] I need your "good" RFCs

Wes,

If "interoperable implementations" is an indicator, then it's hard to beat
RFC 826, which must have many many thousands, if not millions, of
independent implementations by now.

Cheers,
Andy

On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 5:03 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
> Mike
>
>