This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Request for Comments article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
On 2009-04-08, Request for Comments was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 7, 2004, April 7, 2005, April 7, 2007, and April 7, 2014. |
This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seems all of the RFC's that are linked to are returning 404's, with the amount listed here, and elsewhere, would some regex wizard be able to relink them correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.21.200 ( talk) 05:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I found this in the German Wikipedia. Maybe someone could add a description. Don't know how to describe it in english. I hope it's not counted as an advertisment. I'm not a supportor or afflite of this (yet), but it sounds interesting to me. The link is: http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.102.162 ( talk) 21:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be really nice if someone went through that list of "important" RFCs and added some information saying why each is important. If no-one does it soon, I'll do it... -- Timwi 22:59 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Lots of RFC articles have been merged into this one. Angela did this but takes no blame for it. From VfD:
Is there any particular reason you have multiple "External Link" headers? Also, may I suggest that we have a separate "Links to RFC's" section for the links to actual RFC's, and not lump them in with the rest of the random external links? Finally, to make it easier to edit, we might want to have several sections of RFC links (titled something more imaginative than "Links to RFC's in the 1-1000 Range" :-). Noel 15:22, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I don't understand why people keep removing the link to Wikipedia:Request for comments. It is very apropos and useful here. By comparison, VfD redirects to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Rfa redirects to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and so on; is it that unreasonable that RFC and Request for Comments should provide at least a link to the W:RfC page? Someone could well be seeking that page here. Also, cf. VFD. -- V V 23:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I find it somewhat amusing that RFC 3092 (Etymology of "Foo") is listed among the most important RFCs... :) Fredrik 20:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Are three-digit RFCs supposed to be listed as RFC 0123 or as RFC 123? Both exist on the page. It's fine to do it either way, but some standard should be settled on. I vote for the second way, dropping the leading zero. Grendelkhan 03:05, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)
RFC 439 seems like a joke to me. But it dates January 21... Guaka 22:25, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I wikified the RFC links (i.e., prefer RFC 1234
= RFC 1234 to [http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1234.txt RFC 1234]
=
RFC 1234) and added all the information to a table, which I feel is the proper way to present data repeated in a regular format. --
Ardonik.
talk() 02:09, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps someone should write why it's called Request for Comments, I have no idea, fo me it's a strange way to define a standard to calle it rfc. -- AzaToth 11:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think this is unwieldy, and hard to use in it current large size. I propose that we split it up, and create List of the most important RFCs and List of IETF RFCs as separate articles. Noel (talk) 02:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why a list of "random RFCs"? Maybe "Key RFCs", or "Importent RFCs"? ~ mlk ✉ ♬ 03:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
The list of "important RFC's" is still really long, and now that each entry links to the actual RFC, has much duplication with the later lengthy list of RFC's at the end of the article. I don't have the energy to do much about this at this point - I just spent a couple of hours going through the list of "important RFC's" and trying to weed out the obsolete/obscure ones, and making sure all the important ones were there. Noel 18:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I once tried to find the oldest public file on the internet and I came to the conclusion it was RFC 1 (filename '1') which I found on a university ftp with the timestamp of 7 April 1969. I can't seem to find this file anymore, does anyone know of it?
Yes, I removed all of the lists. I know there will be mixed reactions, but here is the rationale:
– Ringbang 14:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
FYI: Maybe we could arrange a better link for RFC 4321 anywhere in plain text, see MediaWiki talk:Rfcurl. -- Omniplex 16:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The History section includes the phrase "because UCLA was one of the first Interface Message Processors (IMPs) on ARPANET.". Is that really correct usage of the term Interface Message Processor? It's my understanding that an IMP was the interface to the network, like a NIC is on a LAN. How about "because UCLA had one of the first IMPs on ARPANET"? JöG 20:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This article for some reason has been repeatedly vandalized and significant content was lost since May, until I noticed what was going on this afternoon. If the pattern continues, semi-protection may be necessary. I am flagging the issue so the admins can monitor this article and act accordingly. -- Coolcaesar 06:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
RFC references are automagically linked in Wikipedia, but I haven't run across anything that documents this. I'm absolutely certain I could if I dug harder, but that's kind of my point: shouldn't there be at least a passing mention of it here, presumably as a hatnote? I know this would clutter the article a bit, so alternatively, maybe it could be mentioned in a hatnote on Wikipedia:Request for Comment? If not, where should I be looking?
The reason I really bring this up, other than the obvious "feature documentation should be easy to find" point, is a related topic: what's the best way to cite an RFC?
I'm currently editing an article that has such a cite, which currently uses the {{ cite web}} template. The problem, as I see it, is that this template requires a URL. Hardwiring a URL in this fashion seems to me to work against the WP "automagic RFC link" feature, since the automagic link is presumably to what is felt by consensus to be a canonical source, which may change some time in the future. If RFC URLs are also hardwired in {{cite web}} links scattered throughtout articles, this defeats one of the purposes of having the automagic links.
I think the proper solution would be to have a new dedicated {{ cite rfc}} template that would require a serial number field instead of a URL field, and use the same routines as the automagic to generate the appropriate link. It could then also have only the fields appropriate to an RFC, rather than the more generic {{cite web}} fields.
Or maybe the right answer is "don't cite RFCs at all; let the automagic stand in place of a cite." This doesn't seem entirely sufficient to me.
This is probably the wrong place to discuss this, but I'm not sure where the right place would be...-- NapoliRoma ( talk) 20:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Along the lines of the URN, shouldn't a citation template (or anything like the current auto-linking system) ideally handle all the various types in the series (RFC, STD, BCP, etc.)? And how should the multiple identities of a single document be handled? If an article mentions "RFC 5000", should the citation automatically mention that that document is also called "STD 1", or would the complexities of such a feature make it too difficult to implement? What should the behavior be for Standards that are in transition? Example: RFCs 821 used to be an Internet Standard document, part of STD 10, but it's been superseded by a mere Proposed Standard, RFC 2821. See Internet Protocol Standards. It's not completely obvious how to handle such a situation if it's handled automatically, but if it's left to the editor, different editors will handle it in very different ways. What would the best automatic or template behavior be?
Stephan Leeds ( talk) 12:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
How about a section covering the URI for RFCs? For example,
urn:ietf:rfc:2141
.
The section could cover the theory and potential and actual use. Potential use could be a browser plugin/extension which would enable one to turn
<a href="
urn:ietf:rfc:2141">such an link</a>
into a link to the RFC at the user's favorite RFC mirror. Actual use of the URN on the web right now is non-existant as far as I know.
69.205.54.39 (
talk)
16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
In early years of networking only relatively small number of people was engaged in creating standards and thus had enormous influence on modern networking. It would be nice to mention them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.201.152 ( talk) 16:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)The article should explain why it is that Requests for Comments changed from requests for comments into final standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.243.199.239 ( talk) 07:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Are the results of an RFC just a vote count, or do the !votes have to invoke Wikipedia !rules and Wikipedia !law? Is calling something trivia a valid RFC comment that counts as a !vote? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 15:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The article currently seems pretty focused on how RFCs are used by the IETF, when in reality they're used much more broadly in all sorts of decentralized projects; of course, there's the Wikipedia usage at the top of the page (and the government uses briefly touched upon), but there's the Rust and Haskell programming languages, the Yarn package manager, the Ethereum blockchain, and others. It's become general internet vernacular for a process to change something with wide input, and I think our article should recognize that. Shrug-shrug ( talk) 02:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Opposition by Coolcaesar and Amakuru is well founded in policy and conventions. ( non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 20:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Request for Comments → Request for comments – Per WP:NCCAPS. Not a trademark, title of a specific document, or other proper name. Article also needs additional revision for superfluous capitalization. Ibadibam ( talk) 18:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Internet Draft is not clearly independently notable. Could be handled as a subsection of Request_for_Comments#Status. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Request for Comments is a generic term. Rather than a Self Reference:
we'd need something like a generic Hatnote
.
A good description can be found in Writing up an RFC, which cites PHP's RFCs. Rust also collects RFCs, and US gov uses this acronym too.
I'm not clear whether we should redirect to what kind of new short page. Not a disambiguation page, unless we want to have wiki pages for many kinds of RFCs. Also a wikiktionary entry (if they'll keep it):
ale ( talk) 10:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The astute will notice some edits to the "Streams" section. That's because the text was a bit dated, and never really matched what was described in the references. Pigdog234 ( talk) 12:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Request for Comments article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
On 2009-04-08, Request for Comments was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 7, 2004, April 7, 2005, April 7, 2007, and April 7, 2014. |
This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seems all of the RFC's that are linked to are returning 404's, with the amount listed here, and elsewhere, would some regex wizard be able to relink them correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.21.200 ( talk) 05:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I found this in the German Wikipedia. Maybe someone could add a description. Don't know how to describe it in english. I hope it's not counted as an advertisment. I'm not a supportor or afflite of this (yet), but it sounds interesting to me. The link is: http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.102.162 ( talk) 21:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be really nice if someone went through that list of "important" RFCs and added some information saying why each is important. If no-one does it soon, I'll do it... -- Timwi 22:59 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Lots of RFC articles have been merged into this one. Angela did this but takes no blame for it. From VfD:
Is there any particular reason you have multiple "External Link" headers? Also, may I suggest that we have a separate "Links to RFC's" section for the links to actual RFC's, and not lump them in with the rest of the random external links? Finally, to make it easier to edit, we might want to have several sections of RFC links (titled something more imaginative than "Links to RFC's in the 1-1000 Range" :-). Noel 15:22, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I don't understand why people keep removing the link to Wikipedia:Request for comments. It is very apropos and useful here. By comparison, VfD redirects to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Rfa redirects to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and so on; is it that unreasonable that RFC and Request for Comments should provide at least a link to the W:RfC page? Someone could well be seeking that page here. Also, cf. VFD. -- V V 23:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I find it somewhat amusing that RFC 3092 (Etymology of "Foo") is listed among the most important RFCs... :) Fredrik 20:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Are three-digit RFCs supposed to be listed as RFC 0123 or as RFC 123? Both exist on the page. It's fine to do it either way, but some standard should be settled on. I vote for the second way, dropping the leading zero. Grendelkhan 03:05, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)
RFC 439 seems like a joke to me. But it dates January 21... Guaka 22:25, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I wikified the RFC links (i.e., prefer RFC 1234
= RFC 1234 to [http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1234.txt RFC 1234]
=
RFC 1234) and added all the information to a table, which I feel is the proper way to present data repeated in a regular format. --
Ardonik.
talk() 02:09, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps someone should write why it's called Request for Comments, I have no idea, fo me it's a strange way to define a standard to calle it rfc. -- AzaToth 11:58, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think this is unwieldy, and hard to use in it current large size. I propose that we split it up, and create List of the most important RFCs and List of IETF RFCs as separate articles. Noel (talk) 02:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why a list of "random RFCs"? Maybe "Key RFCs", or "Importent RFCs"? ~ mlk ✉ ♬ 03:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
The list of "important RFC's" is still really long, and now that each entry links to the actual RFC, has much duplication with the later lengthy list of RFC's at the end of the article. I don't have the energy to do much about this at this point - I just spent a couple of hours going through the list of "important RFC's" and trying to weed out the obsolete/obscure ones, and making sure all the important ones were there. Noel 18:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I once tried to find the oldest public file on the internet and I came to the conclusion it was RFC 1 (filename '1') which I found on a university ftp with the timestamp of 7 April 1969. I can't seem to find this file anymore, does anyone know of it?
Yes, I removed all of the lists. I know there will be mixed reactions, but here is the rationale:
– Ringbang 14:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
FYI: Maybe we could arrange a better link for RFC 4321 anywhere in plain text, see MediaWiki talk:Rfcurl. -- Omniplex 16:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The History section includes the phrase "because UCLA was one of the first Interface Message Processors (IMPs) on ARPANET.". Is that really correct usage of the term Interface Message Processor? It's my understanding that an IMP was the interface to the network, like a NIC is on a LAN. How about "because UCLA had one of the first IMPs on ARPANET"? JöG 20:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This article for some reason has been repeatedly vandalized and significant content was lost since May, until I noticed what was going on this afternoon. If the pattern continues, semi-protection may be necessary. I am flagging the issue so the admins can monitor this article and act accordingly. -- Coolcaesar 06:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
RFC references are automagically linked in Wikipedia, but I haven't run across anything that documents this. I'm absolutely certain I could if I dug harder, but that's kind of my point: shouldn't there be at least a passing mention of it here, presumably as a hatnote? I know this would clutter the article a bit, so alternatively, maybe it could be mentioned in a hatnote on Wikipedia:Request for Comment? If not, where should I be looking?
The reason I really bring this up, other than the obvious "feature documentation should be easy to find" point, is a related topic: what's the best way to cite an RFC?
I'm currently editing an article that has such a cite, which currently uses the {{ cite web}} template. The problem, as I see it, is that this template requires a URL. Hardwiring a URL in this fashion seems to me to work against the WP "automagic RFC link" feature, since the automagic link is presumably to what is felt by consensus to be a canonical source, which may change some time in the future. If RFC URLs are also hardwired in {{cite web}} links scattered throughtout articles, this defeats one of the purposes of having the automagic links.
I think the proper solution would be to have a new dedicated {{ cite rfc}} template that would require a serial number field instead of a URL field, and use the same routines as the automagic to generate the appropriate link. It could then also have only the fields appropriate to an RFC, rather than the more generic {{cite web}} fields.
Or maybe the right answer is "don't cite RFCs at all; let the automagic stand in place of a cite." This doesn't seem entirely sufficient to me.
This is probably the wrong place to discuss this, but I'm not sure where the right place would be...-- NapoliRoma ( talk) 20:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Along the lines of the URN, shouldn't a citation template (or anything like the current auto-linking system) ideally handle all the various types in the series (RFC, STD, BCP, etc.)? And how should the multiple identities of a single document be handled? If an article mentions "RFC 5000", should the citation automatically mention that that document is also called "STD 1", or would the complexities of such a feature make it too difficult to implement? What should the behavior be for Standards that are in transition? Example: RFCs 821 used to be an Internet Standard document, part of STD 10, but it's been superseded by a mere Proposed Standard, RFC 2821. See Internet Protocol Standards. It's not completely obvious how to handle such a situation if it's handled automatically, but if it's left to the editor, different editors will handle it in very different ways. What would the best automatic or template behavior be?
Stephan Leeds ( talk) 12:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
How about a section covering the URI for RFCs? For example,
urn:ietf:rfc:2141
.
The section could cover the theory and potential and actual use. Potential use could be a browser plugin/extension which would enable one to turn
<a href="
urn:ietf:rfc:2141">such an link</a>
into a link to the RFC at the user's favorite RFC mirror. Actual use of the URN on the web right now is non-existant as far as I know.
69.205.54.39 (
talk)
16:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
In early years of networking only relatively small number of people was engaged in creating standards and thus had enormous influence on modern networking. It would be nice to mention them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.201.152 ( talk) 16:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)The article should explain why it is that Requests for Comments changed from requests for comments into final standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.243.199.239 ( talk) 07:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Are the results of an RFC just a vote count, or do the !votes have to invoke Wikipedia !rules and Wikipedia !law? Is calling something trivia a valid RFC comment that counts as a !vote? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 15:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The article currently seems pretty focused on how RFCs are used by the IETF, when in reality they're used much more broadly in all sorts of decentralized projects; of course, there's the Wikipedia usage at the top of the page (and the government uses briefly touched upon), but there's the Rust and Haskell programming languages, the Yarn package manager, the Ethereum blockchain, and others. It's become general internet vernacular for a process to change something with wide input, and I think our article should recognize that. Shrug-shrug ( talk) 02:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Opposition by Coolcaesar and Amakuru is well founded in policy and conventions. ( non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 20:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Request for Comments → Request for comments – Per WP:NCCAPS. Not a trademark, title of a specific document, or other proper name. Article also needs additional revision for superfluous capitalization. Ibadibam ( talk) 18:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Internet Draft is not clearly independently notable. Could be handled as a subsection of Request_for_Comments#Status. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Request for Comments is a generic term. Rather than a Self Reference:
we'd need something like a generic Hatnote
.
A good description can be found in Writing up an RFC, which cites PHP's RFCs. Rust also collects RFCs, and US gov uses this acronym too.
I'm not clear whether we should redirect to what kind of new short page. Not a disambiguation page, unless we want to have wiki pages for many kinds of RFCs. Also a wikiktionary entry (if they'll keep it):
ale ( talk) 10:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The astute will notice some edits to the "Streams" section. That's because the text was a bit dated, and never really matched what was described in the references. Pigdog234 ( talk) 12:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)