summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc4041.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc4041.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc4041.txt451
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]
+