doc: Add RFC documents

1 files changed, 451 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc4041.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc4041.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..496c6fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc4041.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,451 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group                                          A. Farrel
+Request for Comments: 4041                            Old Dog Consulting
+Category: Informational                                     1 April 2005
+
+
+       Requirements for Morality Sections in Routing Area Drafts
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
+   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
+   memo is unlimited.
+
+Copyright Notice
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
+
+Abstract
+
+   It has often been the case that morality has not been given proper
+   consideration in the design and specification of protocols produced
+   within the Routing Area.  This has led to a decline in the moral
+   values within the Internet and attempts to retrofit a suitable moral
+   code to implemented and deployed protocols has been shown to be
+   sub-optimal.
+
+   This document specifies a requirement for all new Routing Area
+   Internet-Drafts to include a "Morality Considerations" section, and
+   gives guidance on what that section should contain.
+
+1.  Introduction
+
+   It is well accepted by popular opinion and other reliable metrics
+   that moral values are declining and that degeneracy is increasing.
+   Young people are particularly at risk from the rising depravity in
+   society and much of the blame can be squarely placed at the door of
+   the Internet.  If you do not feel safe on the streets at night, what
+   do you think it is like on the Information Superhighway?
+
+   When new protocols or protocol extensions are developed within the
+   Routing Area, it is often the case that not enough consideration is
+   given to the impact of the protocol on the moral fiber of the
+   Internet.  The result is that moral consequences are only understood
+   once the protocols have been implemented, and sometimes not until
+   after they have been deployed.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 1]
+
+RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005
+
+
+   The resultant attempts to restore appropriate behavior and purge the
+   community of improper activities are not always easy or
+   architecturally pleasant.  Further, it is possible that certain
+   protocol designs make morality particularly hard to achieve.
+
+   Recognising that moral issues are fundamental to the utility and
+   success of protocols designed within the IETF, and that simply making
+   a wishy-washy liberal-minded statement does not necessarily provide
+   adequate guarantees of a correct and proper outcome for society, this
+   document defines requirements for the inclusion of Morality
+   Considerations sections in all Internet-Drafts produced within the
+   Routing Area.  Meeting these requirements will ensure that proper
+   consideration is given to moral issues at all stages of the protocol
+   development process, from Requirements and Architecture, through
+   Specification and Applicability.
+
+   The remainder of this document describes the necessary subsections of
+   the Morality Considerations sections, and gives guidance about what
+   information should be contained in those subsections.
+
+1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document
+
+   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
+   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
+   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
+
+   The key words "SHALT", "SHALT NOT", "SMITE", and "PILLAR OF SALT" in
+   this document are to be interpreted as expected.
+
+2.  Presence and Placement of Morality Considerations Sections
+
+2.1.  Null Morality Considerations Sections
+
+   It may be the case that the authors of Internet-Drafts have no or few
+   morals.  This does not relieve them of their duty to understand the
+   consequences of their actions.
+
+   The more likely an author is to say that a null Morality
+   Considerations section is acceptable, the more pressure must be
+   exerted on him by the Area and the appropriate Working Group to
+   ensure that he gives full consideration to his actions, and reflects
+   long and hard on the consequences of his writing and the value of his
+   life.
+
+   On the other hand, some authors are well known to have the highest
+   moral pedigree: a fact that is plainly obvious from the company they
+   keep, the Working Groups they attend, and their eligibility for
+   NomCom.  It is clearly unnecessary for such esteemed persons to waste
+
+
+
+Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 2]
+
+RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005
+
+
+   effort on Morality Considerations sections.  It is inconceivable that
+   anything that they write would have anything other than a beneficial
+   effect on the Routing Area and the Internet in general.
+
+2.2.  Mandatory Subsections
+
+   If the Morality Considerations section is present, it MUST contain at
+   least the following subsections.  The content of these subsections is
+   surely self-evident to any right-thinking person.  Further guidance
+   can be obtained from your moral guardian, your household gods, or
+   from any member of the IMM (Internet Moral Majority).
+
+   -  Likelihood of misuse by depraved or sick individuals.  This
+      subsection must fully address the possibility that the proposed
+      protocols or protocol extensions might be used for the
+      distribution of blue, smutty, or plain disgusting images.
+
+   -  Likelihood of misuse by misguided individuals.  There is an
+      obvious need to protect minors and people with misguided thought
+      processes from utilising the protocols or protocol extensions for
+      purposes that would inevitably do them harm.
+
+   -  Likelihood of misuse by large, multi-national corporations.  Such
+      a thought is, of course, unthinkable.
+
+   -  Availability of oversight facilities.  There are those who would
+      corrupt our morals motivated as they are by a hatred of the
+      freedom of Internet access with which we are graced.  We place a
+      significant burden of responsibility on those who guard our
+      community from these evil-doers and it is only fitting that we
+      give them as much support as is possible.  Therefore, all
+      encryption and obfuscation techniques MUST be excluded -
+      individuals who have nothing to hide need to fear the oversight of
+      those whose morals are beyond doubt.
+
+   -  Inter-SDO impact.  We must allow for other moral frameworks and
+      fully respect other people's right to subscribe to other belief
+      systems.  Such people are, however, wrong and doomed to spend
+      eternity in a dark corner with only dial-up access.  So it has
+      been written.
+
+   -  Care and concern for avian carriers.  A duck may be somebody's
+      mother.
+
+   Even if one or more of these subsections are considered irrelevant,
+   they MUST all still be present, and MUST contain a full rebuttal of
+   this deviant thought.
+
+
+
+
+Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 3]
+
+RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005
+
+
+2.3.  Optional Subsections
+
+   Additional subsections may be added to accommodate zealots.
+
+2.4.  Placement of Morality Considerations Sections
+
+   The Morality Considerations section MUST be given full prominence in
+   each Internet Draft.
+
+3.  Applicability Scenarios
+
+   This section outlines, by way of example, some particular areas that
+   are in dire need of reform and where a short, sharp shock could make
+   a really big difference.
+
+3.1.  Provision of Services
+
+   We must do our utmost to ensure that services are delivered in a
+   timely and reliable way.  Emphasis should be placed on Quality of
+   Service (QoS) and meeting the needs of the consumer of the service.
+
+   Arrangements should be made for regular provision of services, and
+   sermons should be to the point and contain a strong moral message.
+
+3.2.  Political Correctness (PC)
+
+   Political correctness has gone too far.  This problem can be traced
+   way back to the 1970s when the desktop PC was invented.  It is
+   necessary for Internet-Drafts to observe a form of political
+   correctness, but note that you do not always have to mean what you
+   say.
+
+3.2.1.  Differentiated Services
+
+   Segregation of packets on the grounds of color is now banned and
+   Internet-Drafts must not make use of this technique.
+
+   If you follow all of the recommendations in this document, you will
+   find that "packets of color" (as we must now refer to them) tend to
+   avoid your points of presence, and you will no longer be troubled by
+   them.
+
+3.2.2.  Jumbo Packets
+
+   It is no longer appropriate to refer to "jumbo packets".  Please use
+   the term "capacitorially challenged".
+
+
+
+
+
+Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 4]
+
+RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005
+
+
+3.2.3.  Byte Ordering
+
+   Note that within Internet-Drafts, bytes (and bits) progress from the
+   left to the right.  This is how things should be.
+
+3.3.  Protection or Abstinence
+
+   Much has been made recently of the need to provide protection within
+   the Internet.  It is the role of the IMM to determine when protection
+   is required, and the role of the IESG bulldogs to ensure that we are
+   all protected.
+
+   However, protection is only one way to prevent unplanned outages and,
+   as we all know, the ready availability of protection schemes such as
+   1:1 (one-on-one) or 1:n (orgy-mode) have lead to a belief that it is
+   acceptable to switch (or swing) at will.  It should be noted that
+   protection can fail, and under no circumstances should extra traffic
+   be countenanced.
+
+   In reality, the only safe way to avoid passing data to your friends
+   is to agree to pledge to have no control plane before marriage.  Join
+   our campaign and sign up for the SONET Ring Thing.
+
+3.4.  Promiscuity
+
+   Various disgusting protocols indulge in promiscuity.  This appears to
+   happen most often when an operator is unwilling to select a single
+   partner and wants to play the field.
+
+   Promiscuous modes of operation are an abomination, exceeded only by
+   multicast.
+
+4.  Terminology
+
+   Admission Control
+      The caring investigative arm of the IMM.
+
+   Doom
+      Port 666.  Need we say more?
+
+   ECMP
+      What is this?  Some kind of Communism?
+
+   Money
+      The root of all evil.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 5]
+
+RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005
+
+
+   MPLS
+      What is with this "layer two-and-a-half" nonsense?  The world is
+      flat, just accept the fact.
+
+   Packet Switching
+      Sounds like fraud to me.
+
+   Path
+      The route of all LSPs.
+
+   Policy Control
+      The administrative arm of the IMM.
+
+   Random Walk
+      Substance abuse is to be avoided.
+
+   Rendezvous Point
+      Poorly lit street corner.  Not to be confused with the root of all
+      multicast.
+
+   Standard Body
+      What we should all strive for.
+
+   Strawberry Ice Cream
+      Something that wills the void between rational discussion and
+      all-out thermo nuclear war [SCREAM].
+
+5.  Morality Considerations
+
+   The moral pedigree of the author of this document places him and his
+   writings beyond question.
+
+6.  IANA Considerations
+
+   IANA should think carefully about the protection of their immortal
+   souls.
+
+7.  Security Considerations
+
+   Security is of the utmost importance.
+
+   A secure Internet community will ensure the security of all of its
+   members.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 6]
+
+RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005
+
+
+8.  Acknowledgements
+
+   I would like to thank my guru Alex Dipandra-Zinin.
+
+   Jozef Wroblewski, who clearly knows promiscuous behavior when he sees
+   it, pointed out some of the dangers in promiscuous operation.
+
+   No avian carriers were harmed in the production of this document.
+
+9.  Intellectual Property Considerations
+
+   Property is theft.  What is yours is mine.  What is mine, you keep
+   your hands off.
+
+10.  Normative References
+
+   I don't need to be told how to formulate my morals.
+
+   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
+             Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
+
+11.  Informative References
+
+   To be frank, I don't find many other documents informative.
+
+   [SCREAM]  Farrel, A., "Observations on Proposing Protocol
+             Enhancements that Address Stated Requirements but also go
+             Further by Meeting more General Needs", Work in Progress,
+             June 2003.
+
+Author's Address
+
+   Adrian Farrel
+   Old Dog Consulting
+
+   Phone: I'm not telling you that.  Why do you ask, anyway?
+   EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 7]
+
+RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005
+
+
+Full Copyright Statement
+
+   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
+
+   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
+   contained in BCP 78 and at www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html, and
+   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
+
+   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
+   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
+   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
+   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
+   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
+   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
+   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Intellectual Property
+
+   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
+   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
+   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
+   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
+   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
+   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
+   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
+   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
+
+   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
+   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
+   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
+   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
+   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
+   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
+
+   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
+   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
+   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
+   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
+   ipr@ietf.org.
+
+Acknowledgement
+
+   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
+   Internet Society.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 8]
+