<![CDATA[Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them.]]>RE: https://mastodon.online/@rfceditor/116653935307843868

Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them.

Hopefully this epoch will require less preparation than Y2K did.

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/topic/e767f889-9b03-4118-9d8a-e2744ba59f3b/seeing-the-ssh-protocols-formalized-and-standardized-is-nice-but-i-also-note-that-after-57-years-of-internet-rfcs-we-re-closing-in-on-needing-a-fifth-digit-for-numbering-them.RSS for NodeSat, 30 May 2026 02:37:49 GMTThu, 28 May 2026 20:03:11 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Fri, 29 May 2026 05:04:24 GMT]]>@timbray @SteveBellovin @mattblaze @carlmalamud

I have 9949 (饉). "A time of famine or crop failure"

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9949/

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://mastodon.social/users/sayrer/statuses/116656115866025803https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://mastodon.social/users/sayrer/statuses/116656115866025803Fri, 29 May 2026 05:04:24 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Fri, 29 May 2026 04:47:05 GMT]]>@timbray @SteveBellovin @mattblaze @carlmalamud they are Chinese Unicode characters right now. QUIC:

U+9000 → 退 (retreat, withdraw)
U+9001 → 送 (send, deliver)
U+9002 → 适 (go to; in simplified Chinese also used for 適, "suitable")

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://mastodon.social/users/sayrer/statuses/116656047749665191https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://mastodon.social/users/sayrer/statuses/116656047749665191Fri, 29 May 2026 04:47:05 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Fri, 29 May 2026 03:13:05 GMT]]>@timbray @SteveBellovin @mattblaze @carlmalamud I thought the RFC centre had decided to not issue RFC 10000, but go from 10001

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://defcon.social/users/letoams/statuses/116655678126794552https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://defcon.social/users/letoams/statuses/116655678126794552Fri, 29 May 2026 03:13:05 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Fri, 29 May 2026 03:10:27 GMT]]>@rsalz @mattblaze yeah, no RFC10000. I feel sad, but, the reasoning around the argument of what would best make it significant swayed me.

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://todon.nl/users/mcr314/statuses/116655667771816818https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://todon.nl/users/mcr314/statuses/116655667771816818Fri, 29 May 2026 03:10:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Fri, 29 May 2026 02:40:45 GMT]]>@mattblaze Yes, the RFC10K problem has been fixed. Took like a year but maybe only a dozen people. I think the current plan is to not publish RFC 10000, but I'm not positive.

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://ioc.exchange/users/rsalz/statuses/116655550990001270https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://ioc.exchange/users/rsalz/statuses/116655550990001270Fri, 29 May 2026 02:40:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Thu, 28 May 2026 22:55:00 GMT]]>@mattblaze same thing that happened to IPv5

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://sometimes.social/users/jordan/statuses/116654663307413996https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://sometimes.social/users/jordan/statuses/116654663307413996Thu, 28 May 2026 22:55:00 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Thu, 28 May 2026 22:50:29 GMT]]>@jordan that will make everyone wonder what happeed to the Requests For Analysis and the Requests For Brainstorming.

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://federate.social/users/mattblaze/statuses/116654645513172789https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://federate.social/users/mattblaze/statuses/116654645513172789Thu, 28 May 2026 22:50:29 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Thu, 28 May 2026 21:18:14 GMT]]>@mattblaze @carlmalamud
The gulf between RFC9000 and RFC1436 is so great, I think we should just say specifically log10(id) is the metric. I assume mathematicians would approve.

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://mastodon.acm.org/users/jaymcor/statuses/116654282776378992https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://mastodon.acm.org/users/jaymcor/statuses/116654282776378992Thu, 28 May 2026 21:18:14 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Thu, 28 May 2026 20:45:04 GMT]]>@timbray @mattblaze @carlmalamud Yes, that's an old tradition. Look at, e.g., RFCs 822, 2822, 5322.

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/SteveBellovin/statuses/116654152395101342https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/SteveBellovin/statuses/116654152395101342Thu, 28 May 2026 20:45:04 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Thu, 28 May 2026 20:42:45 GMT]]>@mattblaze alternate proposal: change from Requests For Comment to Requests For Discussion and start over at 0000

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://sometimes.social/users/jordan/statuses/116654143280709014https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://sometimes.social/users/jordan/statuses/116654143280709014Thu, 28 May 2026 20:42:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Thu, 28 May 2026 20:41:26 GMT]]>@SteveBellovin
When we revised the JSON RFC7159 its successor was 8259, not by accident.

There are conversations in progress about whether there should be an RFC Ten Thousand and if so what it should be.

@mattblaze @carlmalamud

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://cosocial.ca/users/timbray/statuses/116654138074402170https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://cosocial.ca/users/timbray/statuses/116654138074402170Thu, 28 May 2026 20:41:26 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Thu, 28 May 2026 20:32:28 GMT]]>@threatresearch @mattblaze @carlmalamud I have a 6 digit steamid.

COWER IN THE PRESENCE OF SUCH COOLNESS

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/NosirrahSec/statuses/116654102848584267https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/NosirrahSec/statuses/116654102848584267Thu, 28 May 2026 20:32:28 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Thu, 28 May 2026 20:25:05 GMT]]>@mattblaze @carlmalamud This has big "I have a six-digit ICQ account number" vibes

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/threatresearch/statuses/116654073832626904https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/threatresearch/statuses/116654073832626904Thu, 28 May 2026 20:25:05 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Thu, 28 May 2026 20:20:11 GMT]]>@SteveBellovin @mattblaze @rfceditor

if i'm using the tool correctly, 734 of the first 1000 RFCs have not been obseleted/historic. can't tell how many have been updated but that's not a bad record for the first 18 years of standards.

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/paul_ipv6/statuses/116654054510561419https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/paul_ipv6/statuses/116654054510561419Thu, 28 May 2026 20:20:11 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Thu, 28 May 2026 20:18:10 GMT]]>@mattblaze "Is YOUR system RFC10k compliant[tm]? Find out with this expensive piece of software that..."

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://mastodon.online/users/5/statuses/116654046628130057https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://mastodon.online/users/5/statuses/116654046628130057Thu, 28 May 2026 20:18:10 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Thu, 28 May 2026 20:16:03 GMT]]>@mattblaze @carlmalamud When I was on the IAB, we were writing an RFC on cryptographic technology and the Internet. Looking at where we were in the numbering, I emailed Jon Postel and asked if it could be RFC 1984. Jon replied, "We never reserve RFC numbers—but coincidences can happen". Guess what happened…

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/SteveBellovin/statuses/116654038300721729https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/SteveBellovin/statuses/116654038300721729Thu, 28 May 2026 20:16:03 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Thu, 28 May 2026 20:12:25 GMT]]>@mattblaze @rfceditor RFC 1 is from April 1969. RFC 100 is February 1971. RFC 1000 is August 1987. But hey, the metadata is all machine-readable (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index.xml); let's fit a curve…

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/SteveBellovin/statuses/116654024009774359https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://infosec.exchange/users/SteveBellovin/statuses/116654024009774359Thu, 28 May 2026 20:12:25 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Thu, 28 May 2026 20:07:08 GMT]]>@carlmalamud Number of digits in your first published RFC is like Erdos numbers for networking people.

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://federate.social/users/mattblaze/statuses/116654003197760994https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://federate.social/users/mattblaze/statuses/116654003197760994Thu, 28 May 2026 20:07:08 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Seeing the SSH protocols formalized and standardized is nice, but I also note that after 57 years of Internet RFCs, we're closing in on needing a fifth digit for numbering them. on Thu, 28 May 2026 20:06:12 GMT]]>@mattblaze I've got a couple of 4-digit RFCs. Is there a marketplace where I can sell the numbers? Steve Crocker really going to clean up on this one!

]]>https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://official.resource.org/users/carlmalamud/statuses/116653999540198902https://forum.fedi.dk/post/https://official.resource.org/users/carlmalamud/statuses/116653999540198902Thu, 28 May 2026 20:06:12 GMT