IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Example RFC numbers?

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 22 August 2023 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1FFC14F748 for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 15:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.778
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.778 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.091, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VUvL6bnqfkIl for <rfc-interest@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 15:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CE47C152564 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 15:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] ([47.186.48.51]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.17.2/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 37MM0bZI008751 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Aug 2023 17:00:37 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1692741638; bh=RTZBYA0x6TyS3YSsquMTUpo1+/oBqz9yndcWh4cnMnY=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=aFy6DFQBxUHf3EjCnWlYS6FII1rIZ5nFN06rkqNg+wFYAqQ6cgu1q5gcLV2+VE/oK QKx+4uPMePjPoDqmL/4L8httfk+P8LdpN+8myCJeZu7pXtQ4clhYMIvZnUa5lpd//H dYyiGMk9YQQ1m+2js7vY+Wn7wjkj1sWQWH/R5yZo=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.48.51] claimed to be [192.168.1.102]
Message-ID: <147236d8-5ed8-fa1d-2a76-c59cd495e4b7@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 17:00:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.14.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Cc: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
References: <b0cba5ce-120f-c179-e1f2-8c0efae2612a@gmail.com> <85f95c42-5f6d-aef2-89ba-f38c59e2f1c0@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <F9ED87E5-C745-4F70-A1D7-6A8FBC1F7300@vpnc.org> <405e097f-8ad5-6096-35f4-f48c86fcef82@gmail.com> <ZNB8SoSkSB7COCYo@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <891E278E-C0A0-4F8A-8DFD-245BC3D1EAF5@tzi.org> <VI1PR07MB6704C7259871B1A2F87CF959C60CA@VI1PR07MB6704.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <62936f8e-4a26-10bc-4915-adc8129e8e4a@nthpermutation.com> <fbc53279-6949-e1a9-f977-9916564e9bfa@amsl.com> <CAF4+nEGXb3_Eq5eAn4xoAzjzKYX0K44P66X+P=1WYF6rvmBBNg@mail.gmail.com> <61BFB9FA-0B38-4ED2-B193-D176D6EB3C24@gmail.com> <acc1ee3d-987b-3061-2ee9-c7de4628836e@gmail.com> <3104599A-BCD6-47F1-A063-690ABB85D50E@gmail.com> <CAF4+nEF3g_zBFzdKXZGeU4MnE5NQUOmBEdMn+LwbqokQBaEGUw@mail.gmail.com> <26a71eda-6a09-b3a1-2912-2663d32bacb3@nostrum.com> <84f90c6b-b967-8bc2-ede8-f49c6304dc1a@gmail.com> <2236F4D2-6A1A-4815-9012-41E3845E77F2@tzi.org> <1b4e832a-97ec-a007-5435-6c20f0735da7@gmail.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <1b4e832a-97ec-a007-5435-6c20f0735da7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfc-interest/T5jkDlwmqqUgt0w-PnRUByEd2ME>
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] Example RFC numbers?
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:01:44 -0000

On 8/22/23 4:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 23-Aug-23 00:31, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> On 2023-08-21, at 22:40, Brian E Carpenter 
>> <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Amen to that. The leading zeros have always seemed like an odd choice
>>> to me, almost as if they were designed for the punched card era of
>>> computing. Are they used anywhere except the RFC index?
>>
>> In RFCs, I find (*) about 4000 three-digit RFCnnn constructs, and 
>> about 9000 RFC0nnn constructs.  Yes, they are in use in our documents.
>
> Oh, groan. Especially, we apparently chose to use them for DOIs. So 
> RFC-processing software is stuck with this for ever.
Yes, but only for 0001 through 0999. We are _not_ forced into supporting 
03261, and I plan not to allow it.
>
>      Brian
>
>>
>> BTW, RFCnnn (counting occurrences, not documents):
>>
>> 1278 RFC822 Mail message format
>>   473 RFC791 IP
>>   472 RFC793 TCP
>>   219 RFC792 ICMP
>>   199 RFC826 ARP
>>   191 RFC768 UDP
>>
>> Grüße, Carsten
>>
>> (*) non-scientific
>>
>> .

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email