IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 12 February 2021 04:25 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57C03A1133; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:25:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (body has been altered)" header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6zdMtrIlmz0R; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:25:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4C793A11B9; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:25:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35059F4072C; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:24:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B796FF4072C for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:24:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W3y2-KJ3tc-a for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:24:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x635.google.com (mail-pl1-x635.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::635]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95511F4070A for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:24:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x635.google.com with SMTP id a16so4464787plh.8 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:25:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BsWt7HtECKNU7xsOFRE7Q9S6htiJrPTCbbyNJgLAzVc=; b=pC6kdNlZBBUy8V5rOaW/W2DuFOco/ibPWcQFe0QZTv/Er12jJADFcc+cZU+9Qv9DRL o0x3FUlVS387IgsUj8kE/gQyhNe99Ay5H5pwJc+qPwx6OnFLW9gdIPy+IpO/FEhys+PJ rH70GQKh+XzGUN3KepbWTrzxYNv826X5uC3yxpsqDzZf4xSFMhlP37hILgpobNoZehqt ZHJbvBYN8b6yqPvLQVCakkfsH4MuqiEQ+wruqH/xuBxuALtjHNSAuIncHsFn45B30+eO 5/QirF8dLXoCDgZIi9omy8I30tUe7DHuYA6Eo6apHtR9Tl4LNl/pmKKaQerGtBBbpq+E wKKg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=BsWt7HtECKNU7xsOFRE7Q9S6htiJrPTCbbyNJgLAzVc=; b=V5PicNjZMMWXdooCuGpaP+ZZvvXnJ2Lbu4ADIUbbVxAcX+FI/08Xa7oXv0N27rYAHx VRtGo5Jf//+Lx4tTkzNEohF4hUEfOzOLl5r1he9uIqbQ/AyqDDMcihW4+njEO/pMEMHe mygEkrp7cOFmeq5VvtZTCZXDaCqlB3Ev5qD/74RC6yMXTneKBur4MDiynmJQnxDY8E86 6vyxMdSpsnlOL20DoVUHVlvbt/bGJF2b9gq7f9qFLrzIs0GAO2IP/KhYa1fRXHRz5pL0 5UkYGocL8viirwGerQJ/ONw+8nm7Wcs0M9MHA6iL+5FEC6s2n1bH4n5xkyn+KD26SNPK YZrQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ZRo/Gvjs9zRD7t2FzG6wC1EwZdwyO2xBvdn39TkSakqpeLG+Y 3FFFz9sDqKwNoFJn5WLyTHaDbqn6q6zU1g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzrISWwFI7NnuiGJqHcC8K1g/MnN9yBoinkm1ADBQovQ/MnfcdN+rCjocQvyIE8kYhXwpjICw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8342:b029:e1:1465:4bf0 with SMTP id z2-20020a1709028342b02900e114654bf0mr1145215pln.76.1613103912160; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:25:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([151.210.131.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h8sm6490703pfv.154.2021.02.11.20.25.06 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 Feb 2021 20:25:08 -0800 (PST)
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>, RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
References: <ybltuqijmul.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <c33e5662-fb58-65d3-eadd-4c610d3341d2@huitema.net>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fceae22d-4c94-f50b-0c47-ecc7ee0d0a4f@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:25:03 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c33e5662-fb58-65d3-eadd-4c610d3341d2@huitema.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] I need your "good" RFCs
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On 12-Feb-21 13:22, Christian Huitema wrote:
> 
> On 2/11/2021 1:50 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].
> 
> Wes,
> 
> That's a bit what I was trying to do in RFC 8963. Using citation counts 
> and web search referrals as a proxy for "RFC that appeal to a wide 
> audience". Out of the 60 RFC listed in 3 sets of 20 samples for 1998, 
> 2008, and 2018, the 4 RFC with more than 100 references were:
> 
> RFC 2267 - Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service 
> Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing
> RFC 8446 - The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3
> RFC 5326 - Licklider Transmission Protocol - Specification
> RFC 2404 - The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH
> 
> Clearly, out of about 9000 RFC, many more would meet the criteria. But 
> there has to be something good about these 4.

If you want to take a wider view, perhaps citations as counted by (e.g.)
Google Scholar might be interesting. I'm not sure I have enough Google fu
to do that (except for my own RFCs, which is a biased sample, but
the numbers range from 675 to 0).

But of course citation != approval. The 675 citations are for RFC 3056,
which describes a mechanism deeply hated by many ISPs.

   Brian
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email