1358613
story
Armin writes
"Thirty years ago today, the first Request for Comments document, RFC 1, was published at UCLA.
RFC 2555
contains history and reflections on the Request for Comments (RFC) document
series, and the people who made it possible, on its 30th anniversary."
Thanks again Jon.
the ugly open truth of the internet (Score:1)
are talking about 'technology' 'economic growth'
'big business' and 'the internet' all in the same breath....
but it also seems odd that alot of these types
are firm believers in closed intellectual property,
strong secretive patents on algorithms, proprietary technology,
and other ideas and behaviors that are mutually exclusive with
open standards. do these people even understand what an RFC is? do they understand
how the internet was built? if you say 'were gonna build the next ineternet' but then you support proprietary secretive technology, seems to me its not gonna happen because the internet is at its essence about open widely available and implemented standards.
What am i missing here?
. (Score:1)
Correction (Score:1)
Alternate URL (Score:1)
A HREF=
"http://info.internet.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc/file
http://info.internet.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc/files
missing RFCs? (Score:1)
Best RFC (Score:1)
Oh, we might be interested to vote for our favorite RFC [rfc-editor.org].
Mirrors (Score:1)
missing RFCs? (Score:1)
This seems like a good time to call attention to my own contribution to the genre, RFC 2100 [rfc-editor.org], "The Naming of Hosts"... from 1 April 97, and invite those who enjoy it to go vote [rfc-editor.org] in the contest Rob posted about last week.
And to thank Jon.
Cheers,
Rather ironic (Score:1)
missing RFCs? (Score:1)
--
It's not a request... (Score:1)
Request for Comments: 1 UCLA
7 April 1969
--
missing RFCs? (Score:1)
Help/insights, anyone?
missing RFCs? (Score:1)
We did, however, start to put online some of the early RFCs, including RFC 1. We weren't sure whether we were going to try to make them look as close to the typewritten originals as possible, or to make a few adjustments and format them according to the latest RFC style. Those of you who still have your copies of RFC 1 will note the concessions we made to NROFF the online version. The hand-drawn diagrams of the early RFCs also present interesting challenges for conversion into ASCII format.
missing RFCs? (Score:1)
Numbers and birthdays (Score:1)
I just did a 'wc -l' on my local mirror of RFCs (admittedly, not complete) and counted nearly 3 million lines of text... I wonder how much shelfspace that would occupy when printed out. Any ideas?
Second thing: how many of us have had an RFC issued on the day they were born? By coincidence I just found out I am one of the lucky ones (no, I'm not going to tell you which one :) Suffice to say it's old) - Nemosoft
Concise listing of the more useful RFCs (Score:1)
Here [curtisfong.org]'s my list.
Best RFC (Score:1)
Check it out - (at your nearest mirror - as the other sites appear to be quite full!)
It's not a request... (Score:1)
They were working documents - people were supposed to look and scrutinise them for mistakes or inadequacies according to the original strategic plan.
Let me get Maudlin for a minute (Score:1)
RFC for RFCs (Score:1)
I've often wondered if you could type "man man man" and get the man page for the man page on man.
I also like the RFC from 1972 I read about security: "The root password should not be the hostname backwards."
Let me get Maudlin for a minute (Score:1)
I think it's that sense of magic and discovery that pushes me into the realm of computers more and more.
Just a thought
J
It's not a request... (Score:1)
Think about it... the RFC's aren't "requests" for anything -
they're specifications (requirements) to make your application conform
to a standard...
Who started the "request for comments" thing anyway?
It's not a request... (Score:2)
Rarely is a single RFC sufficient to generate a standard on. They are always updated by later ones. Even the old standards like Telnet has some thirty odd RFCs associated with it (last time I looked, including the April 1 variants).