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.
-
@carlmalamud Number of digits in your first published RFC is like Erdos numbers for networking people.
@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…
-
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.
@mattblaze "Is YOUR system RFC10k compliant[tm]? Find out with this expensive piece of software that..."
-
@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…
@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.
-
@carlmalamud Number of digits in your first published RFC is like Erdos numbers for networking people.
@mattblaze @carlmalamud This has big "I have a six-digit ICQ account number" vibes
-
@mattblaze @carlmalamud This has big "I have a six-digit ICQ account number" vibes
@threatresearch @mattblaze @carlmalamud I have a 6 digit steamid.
COWER IN THE PRESENCE OF SUCH COOLNESS
-
@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…
@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.
-
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.
@mattblaze alternate proposal: change from Requests For Comment to Requests For Discussion and start over at 0000
-
@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.
@timbray @mattblaze @carlmalamud Yes, that's an old tradition. Look at, e.g., RFCs 822, 2822, 5322.
-
@carlmalamud Number of digits in your first published RFC is like Erdos numbers for networking people.
@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. -
@mattblaze alternate proposal: change from Requests For Comment to Requests For Discussion and start over at 0000
@jordan that will make everyone wonder what happeed to the Requests For Analysis and the Requests For Brainstorming.
-
@jordan that will make everyone wonder what happeed to the Requests For Analysis and the Requests For Brainstorming.
@mattblaze same thing that happened to IPv5
-
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.
@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.
-
@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.
@rsalz @mattblaze yeah, no RFC10000. I feel sad, but, the reasoning around the argument of what would best make it significant swayed me.
-
@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.
@timbray @SteveBellovin @mattblaze @carlmalamud I thought the RFC centre had decided to not issue RFC 10000, but go from 10001
-
@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.
@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") -
@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")@timbray @SteveBellovin @mattblaze @carlmalamud
I have 9949 (饉). "A time of famine or crop failure"
-
K kramse@helvede.net shared this topic
