Subject: [Rfcplusplus] Comments on "exactly what are RFCs?"

From: Nevil Brownlee <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 17:38:19 +1200

Hi all:

I seem to recall someone on this list saying 'it's not obvious what RFCs one 
needs to be compliant with to "implement TCP"'.  That's not really 
surprising for TCP.  RFC 793 defines the protocol, so every implementation 
must conform to that. Then there are lots of other RFCs covering the TCP 
options,  etc, etc.  However, my favorite networking textbook (Peterson & 
Davie) says "TCP is defined by an implementation." Congestion control 
algorithms like Vegas,Tahoe, Reno, BIC, CUBIC and BBR don't have RFCs - 
they're all described in academic papers.  The one really important thing is 
that any new TCP implementation must interwork well with all the other 
existing ones.

That example reminds us that an 'Internet Standard' represents a consensus 
that it is a workable way to do something, and all of us (the 'Internet 
Community') agree that if we implement that Standard, we'll be able to 
interwork with other existing implementations.

Maybe we need an explanation of what 'Internet Standard' really means
on the IETF home page?

Moving on to the RFC series, it's an archival record of all the ideas
considered within the Internet Community, with a very simple set of rules, i.e.
  1. a single numbering sequence, and
  2. once published, RFCs never change, so their RFC number is a unique
       identifier.
Of course "not all RFCs are standards", but that's a design feature!

Cheers, Nevil

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Nevil Brownlee                    Computer Science Department | ITS
  Phone: +64 9 373 7599 x88941             The University of Auckland
  FAX: +64 9 373 7453   Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand