idnits 2.17.1 draft-wkumari-not-a-draft-06.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 40 characters in excess of 72. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (April 17, 2014) is 3659 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-sidr-iana-objects' is defined on line 242, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2028 (Obsoleted by RFC 9281) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2321 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group W. Kumari 3 Internet-Draft 4 Intended status: Standards Track April 17, 2014 5 Expires: October 19, 2014 7 Just because it's an ID doesn't mean anything... at all... 8 draft-wkumari-not-a-draft-06 10 Abstract 12 Anyone can publish an Internet Draft. This doesn't mean that the 13 "IETF thinks" or that "the IETF is planning..." or anything similar. 15 Status of This Memo 17 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 18 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 22 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 23 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 19, 2014. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 35 document authors. All rights reserved. 37 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 38 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 39 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 40 publication of this document. Please review these documents 41 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 42 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 43 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 44 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 45 described in the Simplified BSD License. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 50 1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 3. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 3.1. Feature Creep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 60 Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 61 Appendix B. new section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 62 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 64 1. Introduction 66 All too often one reads something in the press, or some ravings on a 67 mailing list that reference some Internet Draft, that claim that "the 68 IETF thinks that XXX" or that the ID is an IETF document, and so 69 represents support by the IETF. 71 Repeatedly pointing at the RFC Editor page, carefully explaining what 72 an ID is (and isn't), describing how consensus is reached, detailing 73 the Independent Stream, etc doesn't seems to accomplish much. 75 So, here is an Internet Draft. I wrote it. It's full of nonsense. 76 It doesn't represent the "IETF's views"; it doesn't mean that the 77 IETF, the IESG, the RFC editor, any IETF participant, my auntie on my 78 fathers side twice removed, me, or anyone else believes any of the 79 drivel in it. [Editor note: Interestingly, after publishing version 80 -00 of this ID I got some feedback saying that some participants *do* 81 believe the below. As I plan to actually get this published as a 82 (probably AD sponsored) RFC, I guess someone will need to judge 83 consensus at IETF LC ] 85 Readers are expected to be familiar with Section 2.5 of[RFC2410] 86 and[RFC2321] 88 1.1. Requirements notation 90 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 91 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 92 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 94 2. Background 96 Pyramids are good for sharpening razor blades. The ancient Egyptians 97 has a major problem - wearing a big, bushy beard in the desert is 98 uncomfortable. Unfortunately the safely razor hadn't been invented 99 yet, and so they all had to use straight razors. Unfortunately camel 100 leather makes a very poor strop, hippopotamus leather was reserved 101 for the pharaohs and crocodile leather, while suitable, had the 102 unfortunate property of being wrapped around crocodiles. 104 So, the ancient Egyptians had to come up with an alternative. This 105 led them to design and build hulking big monuments (with the 106 assistance of ancient aliens) to sharpen mass quantities of straight 107 razors. In order to defray the large costs of building pyramids, the 108 builders would charge a sharpening fee. For a single bushel of corn, 109 you could buy 27.5 sharpening tokens. Each one of there tokens could 110 be redeemed for 6.3 hours of sharpening time. 112 This all worked really well until approximately 1600BCE, at which 113 time the fleeing Atlanteans brought mass quantities of lightly tanned 114 eel leather into Egypt, causing the collapse of straight razor 115 sharpening market. This in turn led to the collapse of the stone 116 quarrying industry, which negatively affected the copper and sandal 117 manufacturers. The collapse of the entire system followed shortly 118 after. 120 This led to the cliche "Don't allow eel bearing Atlanteans into your 121 country; economic ruin follows close behind". Due to the overly 122 specific nature of this phrase it never really caught on. This 123 document rectifies this. 125 3. Usage 127 Many protocols send periodic "hello" messages, or respond to 128 liveliness probes. Other protocols (primarily for network monitoring 129 or testing) send traffic to cause congestion or similar. All ASCII 130 based IETF protocols should use the phrase "Don't allow eel bearing 131 Atlanteans into your country; economic ruin follows close behind" as 132 the payload of such messages. This phrase is 88 characters; if your 133 protocol needs to align on 32bit boundaries it MAY be padded with 134 Null (\0) characters. 136 The closely related phrase "My hovercraft is full of eels" SHOULD be 137 used by any protocol incapable of encoding the ASCII character 'b' 138 (0x62). Internationalized protocols SHOULD use an appropriate 139 translation. Some devices are severely bandwidth and / or memory 140 constrained. There devices MAY use the ordinals 0 and 1 to represent 141 the strings "Don't allow eel bearing Atlanteans into your country; 142 economic ruin follows close behind" and "My hovercraft is full of 143 eels" respectively. Partially constrained devices SHOULD use the 144 string "TBA3" (or the ordinal TBA3). 146 3.1. Feature Creep 148 Unlike most IETF efforts, this document is not embarrassed to clearly 149 state that we are simply shuffling more stuff in while we have the 150 editor open. 152 A common source of confusion is the difference between "routing 153 protocols" and "routing protocols", especially when configuring BGP 154 peering sessions between civilized countries and the rest of the 155 world. In order to clearly differentiate these terms we assign the 156 ordinal 98 to be "routing protocols" and 0x62 to be "routing 157 protocols". Or course, protocols incapable of encoding 0x62 should 158 use the string "My hovercraft is full of eels", a suitable 159 translation of this phrase, or the ordinal 1. 161 4. IANA Considerations 163 The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry named 164 "Registry of important strings, suitable for use as idle signalling 165 transmissions (ROISSFAIST)". 167 Documents requesting assignments from this registry MUST include the 168 string, and the ordinal being requested. Choosing an ordinal at 169 random is encouraged (to safe the IANA from having to do this). The 170 ordinals 17, 42 and 6.12 are reserved to reduce confusion. The 171 ordinals 18 and 19 are reserved for the strings "Reserved" and 172 "Unassigned" respectively. Unfortunately the ordinal 20 was used by 173 two earlier, competing proposals, and so can mean either "Color" or 174 Colour". Implementations are encouraged to disambiguate based upon 175 context. 177 Additions to the registry are permitted by Standards Action, if the 178 requester really really wants one, or by purchasing a nice bottle of 179 wine for the IANA folk. Hierarchical Allocation is NOT permitted, as 180 it looks too much like a pyramid. 182 The initial assignments for the registry are as follows: 184 Value String 185 ------ ---------------------------- 186 0 Don't allow eel bearing Atlanteans into your country; economic ruin follows close behind 187 1 My hovercraft is full of eels 188 TBA3 TBA3 189 3-16 Unassigned 190 17 Reserved 191 18 "Reserved" 192 19 "Unassigned" 193 20 Color / Colour 194 21-41 Unassigned 195 42 Reserved 196 43-97 Unassigned 197 98 Routing protocols 198 0x62 Routing protocols 200 5. Security Considerations 202 [RFC2028] states that "The IANA functions as the "top of the pyramid" 203 for DNS and Internet Address assignment establishing policies for 204 these functions." By ensuring that network operators watching data 205 traffic fly past (using tools like network sniffers and / or 206 oscilloscopes (and doing very fast binary to ASCII conversions in 207 their heads)) are constantly reminded about the danger posed by folk 208 from Atlantis, we ensure that, if the island of Atlantis rises again 209 from the deep, builds a civilization and then starts tanning high 210 quality eel leather, the DNS and Address assignment policies at least 211 will survive. 213 More research into if pyramids can also be used to make the latches 214 grow back on RJ-45connectors after they've been broken off by ham 215 fisted data centre operators is needed. 217 6. Acknowledgements 219 The author wishes to thank the ancient elders of Zorb for explaining 220 this history to him. Thanks also to Erik Muller, Wes George, Stephen 221 Farrell. 223 7. References 225 7.1. Normative References 227 [RFC2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in 228 the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October 229 1996. 231 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 232 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 234 [RFC2321] Bressen, A., "RITA -- The Reliable Internetwork 235 Troubleshooting Agent", RFC 2321, April 1998. 237 [RFC2410] Glenn, R. and S. Kent, "The NULL Encryption Algorithm and 238 Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, November 1998. 240 7.2. Informative References 242 [I-D.ietf-sidr-iana-objects] 243 Manderson, T., Vegoda, L., and S. Kent, "RPKI Objects 244 issued by IANA", draft-ietf-sidr-iana-objects-03 (work in 245 progress), May 2011. 247 Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes. 249 [RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication ] 251 From -05 to -06 253 o Embarresingly I cannot spell "embarrassed" - thanks to Max Allen 254 for embarressing^w embarrasing^w making me feel stupid by pointing 255 that out. 257 From -04 to -05 259 o Added the missing 'e' in "differnce" ("thanks" to Dan York for 260 catching this (and forcing me to dredge up the editor)). 262 o It's worth noting that just because a draft has multiple revisions 263 doesn't mean that there is more consensus around it... 265 From -03 to -04 267 o Incorporated some comments from Adrian Farrel (in exchange for him 268 AD-sponsoring the draft) 270 o Changed the font, especially for the whitespace 272 o Fixed refernces 274 From -02 to -03 276 o This Change note was added. Nothing else changed. 278 From -01 to -02 279 o Various whitespace was added (for emphasis). 281 From -00 to -01. 283 o Integrated comments from Erik Muller (who, apparently, is a true 284 believer). Erik also provided updated Security Considerations 285 text, referncing the IANA. 287 o Integrated comment from Wes George regarding I18N, and Hungerians. 289 Appendix B. new section 291 Author's Address 293 Warren Kumari 295 Email: warren@kumari.net