From 4bfd864f10b68b71482b35c818559068ef8d5797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Voss Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 20:54:24 +0100 Subject: doc: Add RFC documents --- doc/rfc/rfc4041.txt | 451 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 451 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/rfc/rfc4041.txt (limited to 'doc/rfc/rfc4041.txt') 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] + -- cgit v1.2.3