summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc/rfc/rfc5513.txt
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc5513.txt')
-rw-r--r--doc/rfc/rfc5513.txt395
1 files changed, 395 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc5513.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc5513.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..43f8375
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc5513.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,395 @@
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Network Working Group A. Farrel
+Request for Comments: 5513 Old Dog Consulting
+Category: Informational 1 April 2009
+
+
+ IANA Considerations for Three Letter Acronyms
+
+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) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
+ document authors. All rights reserved.
+
+ This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
+ Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of
+ publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info).
+ Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
+ and restrictions with respect to this document.
+
+ This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
+ Contributions published or made publicly available before November
+ 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
+ material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
+ modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
+ Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
+ the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
+ outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
+ not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
+ it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
+ than English.
+
+Abstract
+
+ Three Letter Acronyms (TLAs) are commonly used to identify components
+ of networks or protocols as designed or specified within the IETF. A
+ common concern is that one acronym may have multiple expansions.
+ While this may not have been an issue in the past, network
+ convergence means that protocols that did not previously operate
+ together are now found in close proximity. This results in
+ contention for acronyms, and confusion in interpretation. Such
+ confusion has the potential to degrade the performance of the
+ Internet as misunderstandings lead to misconfiguration or other
+ operating errors.
+
+
+
+Farrel Informational [Page 1]
+
+RFC 5513 TLAs April 2009
+
+
+ Given the growing use of TLAs and the relatively small number
+ available, this document specifies a Badly Construed Proposal (BCP)
+ for the management of a registry of TLAs within the IETF, and the
+ procedures for the allocation of new TLAs from the registry.
+
+1. Introduction
+
+ A Three-Letter Acronym (TLA) is a popular form of abbreviation
+ usually based on the initial letters of a three-word term. A formal
+ definition of a TLA is provided in Section 2.
+
+ TLAs are particularly popular within the Internet community where
+ they serve as abbreviations in the spoken and written word. As their
+ popularity has grown, the measure of the value of an RFC (q.v.) is
+ not only its successful implementation, interoperability, and
+ deployment, but also the number of TLAs included in the text.
+
+ For example, the Transmission Control Protocol (itself a TLA - TCP)
+ [RFC0793] is extremely successful. The specification contains no
+ fewer than 20 distinct TLAs (although it should be noted that some
+ are simple abbreviations rather than proper acronyms). On the other
+ hand, the Internet Stream Protocol Version 2 [RFC1819] is ambiguously
+ referred to using the TLA ST2, and also as STII which is clearly not
+ a TLA. Further, the STII specification contains only 12 distinct
+ TLAs, and it should be no surprise that STII has been far less
+ successful than TCP.
+
+ A common concern amongst diligent protocol implementers is that one
+ acronym may have multiple expansions. While this may not have been
+ an issue in the past, network convergence means that protocols that
+ did not previously operate together are now found in close proximity.
+ Not only does this result in contention for acronyms, and confusion
+ in interpretation of specification, it also leads to many wasted
+ hours trying to select appropriate and suitably-unique names for
+ variables within source code implementations. Such confusion has the
+ potential to degrade the performance of the Internet as
+ misunderstandings lead to coding errors, compilation failures,
+ misconfiguration, and other operating errors.
+
+ Furthermore, it should be noted that we are rapidly approaching World
+ Acronym Depletion (WAD). It has been estimated that, at the current
+ rate of TLA allocation, we will run out by the end of September this
+ year. This timescale could be worsened if there is the expected
+ growth in demand for mobile acronyms, IP-TLAs, and TLA-on-demand.
+ According to the definition provided in Section 2, there are 36**3 -
+ 10**3 = 45656 TLAs in total. This number will so easily be depleted
+ that we must institute some policy for conservation.
+
+
+
+
+Farrel Informational [Page 2]
+
+RFC 5513 TLAs April 2009
+
+
+ The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA, helpfully, a four-
+ letter acronym - although note that a four-letter acronym is an FLA
+ and hence is, in its own way, a TLA) maintains registries of names
+ and numbers for use within the Internet in order to avoid duplicate
+ allocation of one of those names or numbers and the consequent
+ confusion and failed interoperability that would arise. It is,
+ therefore, wholly appropriate that the IANA should manage the
+ assignment and use of TLAs within the Internet.
+
+ This document specifies a Badly Construed Proposal for the management
+ of a registry of TLAs within the IETF, and the procedures for the
+ allocation of new TLAs from the registry.
+
+1.1. RFC Editor Terminology List
+
+ It is worth observing that the RFC Editor currently maintains a list
+ of common terms, abbreviations, and acronyms. While this list is
+ highly useful for the construction of documents, it does not provide
+ unambiguous interpretation of acronyms.
+
+2. Formal Definition of TLA
+
+ Acronym - a word made up of the initial letters of the words in a
+ phrase.
+
+ For example, IETF is an acronym formed from the first letters of
+ the phrase International Essential Tremor Foundation [URL-IETF].
+
+ Three Letter Acronym (TLA) - an acronym comprising exactly three
+ letters.
+
+ For example, RFC is a TLA formed of the first letters of the
+ phrase Rugby Football Club [URL-CARDIFF].
+
+ For our usage, we also allow digits within a TLA. Thus, P2P is an
+ acronym meaning Purchase to Pay [URL-P2P]. The digits 2 and 4 are
+ specially used by clever people who have noticed that, when spoken,
+ they sound like the words 'to' and 'for'. Whether this is helpful
+ may be left as an exercise for the user considering the brief
+ conversation, below.
+
+ A - Do you use the Internet Streams Protocol?
+ B - Yes. Do you use ST, too?
+ A - No, I use ST2.
+ B - That's interesting. C uses ST2, too.
+ A - I have a car horn application called Toot-toot.
+ B - Really? Do you use ST2 to Toot-toot, too?
+
+
+
+
+Farrel Informational [Page 3]
+
+RFC 5513 TLAs April 2009
+
+
+ Note, however, that an acronym made up entirely of digits might be
+ frowned upon.
+
+ Lastly, we must consider case-sensitivity. Although acronyms often
+ include upper or lowercase letters, no assumptions should be made
+ about the interpretation of the acronym based on the case of its
+ letters, so that both QOS and QoS clearly refer to the Queen of the
+ South football club [URL-QOS] and [URL-QoS].
+
+2.1. A Note on Vocalization
+
+ Acronyms are often articulated as words in spoken text. This can be
+ helpful in generating a cosy feel or a marketing buzz around a
+ concept that offers a less-favorable reality. For example, Claws and
+ Teeth (CAT) can be pronounced "cat" making it seem quite cuddly.
+
+ Other acronyms are always spelled out in order to avoid accidental
+ misinterpretation or litigation. For example, do not refer to your
+ neighbor's Daughter or Granddaughter as anything other than their
+ D-O-G.
+
+ But care should be taken with vocalization, as well. It will be
+ noted that some letters have more syllables than the words they are
+ used to represent. In these cases, acronyms are to be avoided.
+ Thus, the world wide web must never be assigned the acronym WWW.
+
+ Finally, a word of caution about attempting to pronounce acronyms as
+ words. This can lead to serious injury for the inexperienced unless
+ they happen to be native speakers of Czech. Do not try to say XML in
+ front of your mother-in-law, and don't attempt to talk about Open
+ Office dot Org in polite company.
+
+3. Backward and Forward Compatibility
+
+ It should be obvious to most RFC readers (MRRs) that TLAs are already
+ widely used in Internet specifications. This work is not intended to
+ unnecessarily invalidate existing RFCs, although where such
+ invalidation is necessary or desirable, this work can be used for
+ that purpose.
+
+ In order to support existing documents, IANA is required to search
+ all existing RFCs for every existing acronym usage (EAU), but may
+ filter that search to exclude non-TLAs.
+
+ It will be noted that, as a result of that search, many duplicate
+ meanings will be discovered. For example, "OAM" will be found in a
+ large number of RFCs, yet its meaning may be as diverse as "on a
+ mission", "order of Australia medal", and "orbital angular momentum".
+
+
+
+Farrel Informational [Page 4]
+
+RFC 5513 TLAs April 2009
+
+
+ This contention is best resolved by the judgement of Solomon -- each
+ acronym usage will be allocated its share of the letters currently in
+ use. If there are three uses of an acronym, they will get one letter
+ each; two existing uses would get one-and-a-half letters each; etc.
+
+4. IANA Considerations
+
+4.1. New Registry
+
+ The Internet TLA Registry (ITR) should track the following
+ information:
+
+ - TLA
+ - Unique interpretation
+ - Defining RFC
+
+4.2. Reserved Values
+
+ Certain key values are reserved. That is, they are allocated in the
+ registry by this document and may not be used for any other purpose.
+
+ Acronym Expansion Reference
+ --------+-------------------------------------+-----------
+ TLA Two Letter Acronym [RFC5513]
+ TBD Two Be Deleted [RFC5513]
+ RFC Ready for Compost [RFC5513]
+ PoS Not particularly good [RFC5513]
+ VPN Very possibly no use [RFC5513]
+ TCP Totally bad proposal [RFC5513]
+ USA Universal Source of Acronyms [RFC5513]
+ NBG This document [RFC5513]
+ BCP Badly construed proposal [RFC5513]
+
+4.3. Allocation Policy
+
+ IANA shall apply the following allocation policies according to
+ [RFC5226].
+
+ Experimental Use
+ All TLAs of the form XX* where * is any letter or digit.
+
+ First Come First Served
+ All TLAs of the form X**, Y**, or Z** where * is any letter or
+ digit. Excepted from this are the TLAs of the form XX* as above.
+
+ IETF Review
+ All other TLAs.
+
+
+
+
+Farrel Informational [Page 5]
+
+RFC 5513 TLAs April 2009
+
+
+5. Security Considerations
+
+ Many security algorithms are identified by TLAs. It is a clear
+ requirement that someone implementing, for example, MD5 should be
+ understood to have encoded the well-known Maybe-Decrypted-
+ Deciphered-Decoded-Disambiguated-and-Degraded algorithm, and not any
+ other security algorithm with the same acronym.
+
+6. Acknowledgements
+
+ I would like to thank the MPLS-TP design team for holding seemingly
+ endless meetings during which the need for this document became
+ apparent.
+
+ Thanks to Daniel King for noticing that this document is a BCP.
+
+7. References
+
+7.1. Normative References
+
+ [RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing
+ an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC
+ 5226, May 2008.
+
+7.2. Informative References
+
+ [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, RFC
+ 793, September 1981.
+
+ [RFC1819] Delgrossi, L., Ed., and L. Berger, Ed., "Internet
+ Stream Protocol Version 2 (ST2) Protocol Specification
+ - Version ST2+", RFC 1819, August 1995.
+
+ [URL-IETF] International Essential Tremor Foundation,
+ http://www.essentialtremor.org/
+
+ [URL-CARDIFF] Cardiff Rugby Football Club, http://www.cardiffrfc.com/
+
+ [URL-P2P] eProcumentStotl@nd,
+ http://www.eprocurementscotland.com/Home/ePS-
+ Service/P2P
+
+ [URL-QOS] Queen of the South Football Club, http://www.qosfc.com/
+
+ [URL-QoS] Queen of the South Football Club,
+ ahttp://www.qosfc.com/
+
+
+
+
+
+Farrel Informational [Page 6]
+
+RFC 5513 TLAs April 2009
+
+
+Author's Address
+
+ Adrian Farrel
+ Old Dog Consulting
+ EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Farrel Informational [Page 7]
+