IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net> Wed, 17 February 2021 14:38 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 769AC3A1A90; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 06:38:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 VLDTUjDKUJ77; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 06:38:45 -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 812023A1A8C; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 06:38:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8CD2F40758; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 06:38:41 -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 B740DF40759 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 06:38:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
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 ChId9aIeyCtV for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 06:38:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.hardakers.net (mail.hardakers.net [168.150.192.181]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7E7CF40756 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 06:38:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.hardakers.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 18A0527AB9; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 06:38:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@hardakers.net>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
References: <ybltuqijmul.fsf@w7.hardakers.net> <c33e5662-fb58-65d3-eadd-4c610d3341d2@huitema.net> <fceae22d-4c94-f50b-0c47-ecc7ee0d0a4f@gmail.com> <26676.1613156426@localhost> <16142369-4ab2-e33f-f467-b9e37d5de845@huitema.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 06:38:38 -0800
In-Reply-To: <16142369-4ab2-e33f-f467-b9e37d5de845@huitema.net> (Christian Huitema's message of "Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:46:15 -0800")
Message-ID: <yblpn0yhi8h.fsf@w7.hardakers.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
Cc: RFC Interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
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>

Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net> writes:

> Maybe we should not overthink that. Wes was asking for a sample of
> "good" RFCs, letting people respond with whatever their personal
> choice is for "good". So let's do that. Once he has gotten several
> responses, it will be up to him to read the RFCs mentioned in the
> response and try to analyze what made those "good". That's a lot of
> work, and I am glad that he is undertaking it!

I deliberately left out good, yes.  And I do want to see if there are
some common characteristics across them.

It's been long enough (conversation has slowed) that I can reveal I'm
most interested in "readability" and "understandability".  But I was
curious if the ones people suggested would be good from a technical
point of view (good work) vs readability.  IE, are there RFCs that
people consider "good" but are not well written or easily understood?

But in the end, the discussions both public and comments sent directly
to me have largely talked about readability which has been highly helpful.
 
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI
_______________________________________________
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