idnits 2.17.1 draft-wkumari-not-a-draft-13.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 (29 April 2021) is 1065 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 29 April 2021 4 Intended status: Standards Track 5 Expires: 31 October 2021 7 Just because it's an ID doesn't mean anything... at all... 8 draft-wkumari-not-a-draft-13 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 31 October 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 50 2. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 3. Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 52 3.1. Feature Creep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 4. Section which addresses cats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 55 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 57 8. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 58 Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 Appendix B. new section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 60 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 62 1. Introduction 64 All too often one reads something in the press, or some ravings on a 65 mailing list that reference some Internet Draft, that claim that "the 66 IETF thinks that XXX" or that the ID is an IETF document, and so 67 represents support by the IETF. 69 Repeatedly pointing at the RFC Editor page, carefully explaining what 70 an ID is (and isn't), describing how consensus is reached, detailing 71 the Independent Stream, etc doesn't seems to accomplish much. 73 So, here is an Internet Draft. I wrote it. It's full of nonsense. 74 It doesn't represent the "IETF's views"; it doesn't mean that the 75 IETF, the IESG, the RFC editor, any IETF participant, my auntie on my 76 father's side twice removed, me, or anyone else believes any of the 77 drivel in it. In addition, the fact that a draft has been around for 78 a long time, or has received many revisions doesn't add anything to 79 the authority - drivel which endures remains drivel. [Editor note: 80 Interestingly, after publishing version -00 of this ID I got some 81 feedback saying that some participants *do* believe the below. As I 82 plan to actually get this published as a (probably AD sponsored) RFC, 83 I guess someone will need to judge consensus at IETF LC ] 85 Readers are expected to be familiar with Section 2.5 of [RFC2410] and 86 [RFC2321] 88 1.1. Requirements notation 90 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 91 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 92 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 93 BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 94 capitals, as shown here. 96 2. Background 98 Pyramids are good for sharpening razor blades. The ancient Egyptians 99 has a major problem - wearing a big, bushy beard in the desert is 100 uncomfortable. Unfortunately the safely razor hadn't been invented 101 yet, and so they all had to use straight razors. Additionally, camel 102 leather makes a very poor strop, hippopotamus leather was reserved 103 for the pharaohs and crocodile leather, while suitable, had the 104 unfortunate property of being wrapped around crocodiles. 106 So, the ancient Egyptians had to come up with an alternative. This 107 led them to design and build hulking big monuments (with the 108 assistance of ancient aliens) to sharpen mass quantities of straight 109 razors. In order to defray the large costs of building pyramids, the 110 builders would charge a sharpening fee. For a single bushel of corn, 111 you could buy 27.5 sharpening tokens. Each one of their tokens could 112 be redeemed for 6.3 hours of sharpening time. 114 This all worked really well until approximately 1600BCE, at which 115 time the fleeing Atlanteans brought mass quantities of lightly tanned 116 eel leather into Egypt, causing the collapse of straight razor 117 sharpening market. This in turn led to the collapse of the stone 118 quarrying industry, which negatively affected the copper and sandal 119 manufacturers. The collapse of the entire system followed shortly 120 after. 122 This led to the aphorism "Don't allow eel bearing Atlanteans into 123 your country; economic ruin follows close behind". Due to the overly 124 specific nature of this phrase it never really caught on. This 125 document rectifies this. 127 3. Usage 129 Many protocols send periodic "hello" messages, or respond to 130 liveliness probes. Other protocols (primarily for network monitoring 131 or testing) send traffic to cause congestion or similar. All ASCII 132 based IETF protocols should use the phrase "Don't allow eel bearing 133 Atlanteans into your country; economic ruin follows close behind" as 134 the payload of such messages. This phrase is 88 characters; if your 135 protocol needs to align on 32bit boundaries it MAY be padded with 136 Null (\0) characters. 138 The closely related phrase "My hovercraft is full of eels" SHOULD be 139 used by any protocol incapable of encoding the ASCII character 'b' 140 (0x62). Internationalized protocols SHOULD use an appropriate 141 translation. Some devices are severely bandwidth and / or memory 142 constrained. There devices MAY use the ordinals 0 and 1 to represent 143 the strings "Don't allow eel bearing Atlanteans into your country; 144 economic ruin follows close behind" and "My hovercraft is full of 145 eels" respectively. Partially constrained devices SHOULD use the 146 string "TBA3" (or the ordinal TBA3). 148 3.1. Feature Creep 150 Unlike most IETF efforts, this document is not embarrassed to clearly 151 state that we are simply stuffing more stuff in while we have the 152 editor open. 154 A common source of confusion is the difference between "routing 155 protocols" and "routing protocols", especially when configuring BGP 156 peering sessions between civilized countries and the rest of the 157 world. In order to clearly differentiate these terms we assign the 158 ordinal 98 to be "routing protocols" and 0x62 to be "routing 159 protocols" (but pronounced with a funny accent). Protocols incapable 160 of encoding 0x62 should use the string "My hovercraft is full of 161 eels", a suitable translation of this phrase, or the ordinal 1. 163 4. Section which addresses cats 165 Miaow. Miaow-miaooowww. RAWWRRRR! Purrrr. 167 This section was added due to an unsubtle threat to block any future 168 consensus calls unless the proposers' suggestion to have a section 169 which addressed cats was taken seriously. 171 5. IANA Considerations 173 The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry named 174 "Registry of important strings, suitable for use as idle signalling 175 transmissions (ROISSFUAIST)". 177 Documents requesting assignments from this registry MUST include the 178 string, and the ordinal being requested. Choosing an ordinal at 179 random is encouraged (to save the IANA from having to do this). The 180 ordinals 17, 42 and 6.12 are reserved to reduce confusion. The 181 ordinals 18 and 19 are reserved for the strings "Reserved" and 182 "Unassigned" respectively. Unfortunately the ordinal 20 was used by 183 two earlier, competing proposals, and so can mean either "Color" or 184 Colour". Implementations are encouraged to disambiguate based upon 185 context. 187 Additions to the registry are permitted by Standards Action, if the 188 requester really really *really* wants one, or by purchasing a nice 189 bottle of wine for the IANA folk. Hierarchical Allocation is NOT 190 permitted, as it would look too much like a pyramid. 192 The initial assignments for the registry are as follows: 194 Value String 195 ------ ---------------------------- 196 0 Don't allow eel bearing Atlanteans into your 197 country; economic ruin follows close behind 198 1 My hovercraft is full of eels 199 TBA3 TBA3 200 3-16 Unassigned 201 17 Reserved 202 18 "Reserved" 203 19 "Unassigned" 204 20 Color / Colour 205 21-41 Unassigned 206 42 Reserved 207 43-97 Unassigned 208 98 Routing protocols 209 0x62 Routing protocols 211 6. Security Considerations 213 [RFC2028] states that "The IANA functions as the "top of the pyramid" 214 for DNS and Internet Address assignment establishing policies for 215 these functions." - this reference to pyramid is clear evidence that 216 the IANA has become corrupted by these Atlanteans, and so extra care 217 should be taken when relying on the above registry. 219 By ensuring that network operators watching data traffic fly past 220 (using tools like network sniffers and / or oscilloscopes (and doing 221 very fast binary to ASCII conversions in their heads)) are constantly 222 reminded about the danger posed by folk from Atlantis, we ensure 223 that, if the island of Atlantis rises again from the deep, builds a 224 civilization and then starts tanning high quality eel leather, the 225 DNS and Address assignment policies at least will survive. 227 More research into whether pyramids can also be used to make the 228 latches grow back on RJ-45 connectors after they've been broken off 229 by ham fisted data center operators is needed. 231 7. Acknowledgements 233 The author wishes to thank the ancient elders of Zorb for explaining 234 this history to him. Thanks also to Melchior Aelmans, Havard Eidnes, 235 Wes George, Stephen Farrell, Erik Muller, Andrew Sullivan, Murali 236 Suriar, 'RegW' and Dan York. Oh, and Nick Hilliard, who wanted a 237 section on cats for some reason. 239 8. Normative References 241 [RFC2028] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in 242 the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, 243 DOI 10.17487/RFC2028, October 1996, 244 . 246 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 247 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 248 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 249 . 251 [RFC2321] Bressen, A., "RITA -- The Reliable Internetwork 252 Troubleshooting Agent", RFC 2321, DOI 10.17487/RFC2321, 253 April 1998, . 255 [RFC2410] Glenn, R. and S. Kent, "The NULL Encryption Algorithm and 256 Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, DOI 10.17487/RFC2410, 257 November 1998, . 259 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 260 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 261 May 2017, . 263 Appendix A. Changes / Author Notes. 265 [RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication ] 266 From -12 to -13 268 * Havard Eidnes pointed out that my grammar is bad... 270 From -11 to -12 272 * Nick Hilliard threated to block progress unless we agreed to 273 include his section on cats. While we don't agree with his text/ 274 section, we are sufficently past caring about this entire topic, 275 and so we are just including it, along with a passive aggressive 276 change-log note... 278 From -10 to -11 280 * Bumping version! It's alive!!!! 282 From -09 to -10 284 * Bumping version... 286 From -08 to -09 288 * Murali and Dan York both pointed out that I cannot spell 289 refernce.. referrnce... refarran... refferene... gah! 291 From -07 to -08 293 * "RegW" pointed out that I had 'there tokens' instead of 'their 294 tokens' ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22234591 ). 296 From -06 to -07 298 * Andrew Sullivan pointed out that the ROISSFAIST acronym was 299 insufficiently filled with 'U's, and so proposed that it be 300 spelled ROISSFUAIST instead. After much consideration as to the 301 implications for existing implementation, this change was made. 303 From -05 to -06 305 * Embarresingly I cannot spell "embarrassed" - thanks to Max Allen 306 for embarressing^w embarrasing^w making me feel stupid by pointing 307 that out. 309 From -04 to -05 311 * Added the missing 'e' in "differnce" ("thanks" to Dan York for 312 catching this (and forcing me to dredge up the editor)). 314 * It's worth noting that just because a draft has multiple revisions 315 doesn't mean that there is more consensus around it... 317 From -03 to -04 319 * Incorporated some comments from Adrian Farrel (in exchange for him 320 AD-sponsoring the draft) 322 * Changed the font, especially for the whitespace 324 * Fixed references 326 From -02 to -03 328 * This Change note was added. Nothing else changed. 330 From -01 to -02 332 * Various whitespace was added (for emphasis). 334 From -00 to -01. 336 * Integrated comments from Erik Muller (who, apparently, is a true 337 believer). Erik also provided updated Security Considerations 338 text, referencing the IANA. 340 * Integrated comment from Wes George regarding I18N, and Hungerians. 342 Appendix B. new section 344 Author's Address 346 Warren Kumari 348 Email: warren@kumari.net