idnits 2.17.1 draft-wkumari-not-a-draft-11.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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- The document date (11 February 2021) is 1169 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) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2028 (Obsoleted by RFC 9281) ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 2321 Summary: 2 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 11 February 2021 4 Intended status: Standards Track 5 Expires: 15 August 2021 7 Just because it's an ID doesn't mean anything... at all... 8 draft-wkumari-not-a-draft-11 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 https://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 15 August 2021. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2021 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 (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 39 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 40 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 41 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 42 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 43 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 44 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 46 Table of Contents 48 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 49 1.1. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 50 2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 3. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 3.1. Feature Creep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 7. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 58 Appendix B. new section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 59 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 61 1. Introduction 63 All too often one reads something in the press, or some ravings on a 64 mailing list that reference some Internet Draft, that claim that "the 65 IETF thinks that XXX" or that the ID is an IETF document, and so 66 represents support by the IETF. 68 Repeatedly pointing at the RFC Editor page, carefully explaining what 69 an ID is (and isn't), describing how consensus is reached, detailing 70 the Independent Stream, etc doesn't seems to accomplish much. 72 So, here is an Internet Draft. I wrote it. It's full of nonsense. 73 It doesn't represent the "IETF's views"; it doesn't mean that the 74 IETF, the IESG, the RFC editor, any IETF participant, my auntie on my 75 father's side twice removed, me, or anyone else believes any of the 76 drivel in it. In addition, the fact that a draft has been around for 77 a long time, or has received many revisions doesn't add anything to 78 the authority - drivel which endures remains drivel. [Editor note: 79 Interestingly, after publishing version -00 of this ID I got some 80 feedback saying that some participants *do* believe the below. As I 81 plan to actually get this published as a (probably AD sponsored) RFC, 82 I guess someone will need to judge consensus at IETF LC ] 84 Readers are expected to be familiar with Section 2.5 of [RFC2410] and 85 [RFC2321] 87 1.1. Requirements notation 89 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 90 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 91 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 92 BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 93 capitals, as shown here. 95 2. Background 97 Pyramids are good for sharpening razor blades. The ancient Egyptians 98 has a major problem - wearing a big, bushy beard in the desert is 99 uncomfortable. Unfortunately the safely razor hadn't been invented 100 yet, and so they all had to use straight razors. Additionally, camel 101 leather makes a very poor strop, hippopotamus leather was reserved 102 for the pharaohs and crocodile leather, while suitable, had the 103 unfortunate property of being wrapped around crocodiles. 105 So, the ancient Egyptians had to come up with an alternative. This 106 led them to design and build hulking big monuments (with the 107 assistance of ancient aliens) to sharpen mass quantities of straight 108 razors. In order to defray the large costs of building pyramids, the 109 builders would charge a sharpening fee. For a single bushel of corn, 110 you could buy 27.5 sharpening tokens. Each one of their tokens could 111 be redeemed for 6.3 hours of sharpening time. 113 This all worked really well until approximately 1600BCE, at which 114 time the fleeing Atlanteans brought mass quantities of lightly tanned 115 eel leather into Egypt, causing the collapse of straight razor 116 sharpening market. This in turn led to the collapse of the stone 117 quarrying industry, which negatively affected the copper and sandal 118 manufacturers. The collapse of the entire system followed shortly 119 after. 121 This led to the aphorism "Don't allow eel bearing Atlanteans into 122 your country; economic ruin follows close behind". Due to the overly 123 specific nature of this phrase it never really caught on. This 124 document rectifies this. 126 3. Usage 128 Many protocols send periodic "hello" messages, or respond to 129 liveliness probes. Other protocols (primarily for network monitoring 130 or testing) send traffic to cause congestion or similar. All ASCII 131 based IETF protocols should use the phrase "Don't allow eel bearing 132 Atlanteans into your country; economic ruin follows close behind" as 133 the payload of such messages. This phrase is 88 characters; if your 134 protocol needs to align on 32bit boundaries it MAY be padded with 135 Null (\0) characters. 137 The closely related phrase "My hovercraft is full of eels" SHOULD be 138 used by any protocol incapable of encoding the ASCII character 'b' 139 (0x62). Internationalized protocols SHOULD use an appropriate 140 translation. Some devices are severely bandwidth and / or memory 141 constrained. There devices MAY use the ordinals 0 and 1 to represent 142 the strings "Don't allow eel bearing Atlanteans into your country; 143 economic ruin follows close behind" and "My hovercraft is full of 144 eels" respectively. Partially constrained devices SHOULD use the 145 string "TBA3" (or the ordinal TBA3). 147 3.1. Feature Creep 149 Unlike most IETF efforts, this document is not embarrassed to clearly 150 state that we are simply stuffing more stuff in while we have the 151 editor open. 153 A common source of confusion is the difference between "routing 154 protocols" and "routing protocols", especially when configuring BGP 155 peering sessions between civilized countries and the rest of the 156 world. In order to clearly differentiate these terms we assign the 157 ordinal 98 to be "routing protocols" and 0x62 to be "routing 158 protocols" (but pronounced with a funny accent). Protocols incapable 159 of encoding 0x62 should use the string "My hovercraft is full of 160 eels", a suitable translation of this phrase, or the ordinal 1. 162 4. IANA Considerations 164 The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry named 165 "Registry of important strings, suitable for use as idle signalling 166 transmissions (ROISSFUAIST)". 168 Documents requesting assignments from this registry MUST include the 169 string, and the ordinal being requested. Choosing an ordinal at 170 random is encouraged (to save the IANA from having to do this). The 171 ordinals 17, 42 and 6.12 are reserved to reduce confusion. The 172 ordinals 18 and 19 are reserved for the strings "Reserved" and 173 "Unassigned" respectively. Unfortunately the ordinal 20 was used by 174 two earlier, competing proposals, and so can mean either "Color" or 175 Colour". Implementations are encouraged to disambiguate based upon 176 context. 178 Additions to the registry are permitted by Standards Action, if the 179 requester really really *really* wants one, or by purchasing a nice 180 bottle of wine for the IANA folk. Hierarchical Allocation is NOT 181 permitted, as it would look too much like a pyramid. 183 The initial assignments for the registry are as follows: 185 Value String 186 ------ ---------------------------- 187 0 Don't allow eel bearing Atlanteans into your 188 country; economic ruin follows close behind 189 1 My hovercraft is full of eels 190 TBA3 TBA3 191 3-16 Unassigned 192 17 Reserved 193 18 "Reserved" 194 19 "Unassigned" 195 20 Color / Colour 196 21-41 Unassigned 197 42 Reserved 198 43-97 Unassigned 199 98 Routing protocols 200 0x62 Routing protocols 202 5. Security Considerations 204 [RFC2028] states that "The IANA functions as the "top of the pyramid" 205 for DNS and Internet Address assignment establishing policies for 206 these functions." - this reference to pyramid is clear evidence that 207 the IANA has become corrupted by these Atlanteans, and so extra care 208 should be taken when relying on the above registry. 210 By ensuring that network operators watching data traffic fly past 211 (using tools like network sniffers and / or oscilloscopes (and doing 212 very fast binary to ASCII conversions in their heads)) are constantly 213 reminded about the danger posed by folk from Atlantis, we ensure 214 that, if the island of Atlantis rises again from the deep, builds a 215 civilization and then starts tanning high quality eel leather, the 216 DNS and Address assignment policies at least will survive. 218 More research into if pyramids can also be used to make the latches 219 grow back on RJ-45 connectors after they've been broken off by ham 220 fisted data center operators is needed. 222 6. Acknowledgements 224 The author wishes to thank the ancient elders of Zorb for explaining 225 this history to him. Thanks also to Melchior Aelmans, Wes George, 226 Stephen Farrell, Erik Muller, Andrew Sullivan, Murali Suriar, 'RegW' 227 and Dan York. 229 7. Normative References 231 [RFC2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in 232 the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, 233 DOI 10.17487/RFC2028, October 1996, 234 . 236 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 237 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 238 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 239 . 241 [RFC2321] Bressen, A., "RITA -- The Reliable Internetwork 242 Troubleshooting Agent", RFC 2321, DOI 10.17487/RFC2321, 243 April 1998, . 245 [RFC2410] Glenn, R. and S. Kent, "The NULL Encryption Algorithm and 246 Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, DOI 10.17487/RFC2410, 247 November 1998, . 249 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 250 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 251 May 2017, . 253 Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes. 255 [RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication ] 257 From -10 to -11 259 * Bumping version! It's alive!!!! 261 From -09 to -10 263 * Bumping version... 265 From -08 to -09 267 * Murali and Dan York both pointed out that I cannot spell 268 refernce.. referrnce... refarran... refferene... gah! 270 From -07 to -08 272 * "RegW" pointed out that I had 'there tokens' instead of 'their 273 tokens' ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22234591 ). 275 From -06 to -07 276 * Andrew Sullivan pointed out that the ROISSFAIST acronym was 277 insufficiently filled with 'U's, and so proposed that it be 278 spelled ROISSFUAIST instead. After much consideration as to the 279 implications for existing implementation, this change was made. 281 From -05 to -06 283 * Embarresingly I cannot spell "embarrassed" - thanks to Max Allen 284 for embarressing^w embarrasing^w making me feel stupid by pointing 285 that out. 287 From -04 to -05 289 * Added the missing 'e' in "differnce" ("thanks" to Dan York for 290 catching this (and forcing me to dredge up the editor)). 292 * It's worth noting that just because a draft has multiple revisions 293 doesn't mean that there is more consensus around it... 295 From -03 to -04 297 * Incorporated some comments from Adrian Farrel (in exchange for him 298 AD-sponsoring the draft) 300 * Changed the font, especially for the whitespace 302 * Fixed references 304 From -02 to -03 306 * This Change note was added. Nothing else changed. 308 From -01 to -02 310 * Various whitespace was added (for emphasis). 312 From -00 to -01. 314 * Integrated comments from Erik Muller (who, apparently, is a true 315 believer). Erik also provided updated Security Considerations 316 text, referencing the IANA. 318 * Integrated comment from Wes George regarding I18N, and Hungerians. 320 Appendix B. new section 322 Author's Address 324 Warren Kumari 326 Email: warren@kumari.net