[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 10

Network Working Group                                          W. Kumari
Internet-Draft                                             July 27, 2020
Intended status: Standards Track
Expires: January 28, 2021

       Just because it's an ID doesn't mean anything... at all...


   Anyone can publish an Internet Draft.  This doesn't mean that the
   "IETF thinks" or that "the IETF is planning..." or anything similar.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 28, 2021.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2020 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
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Kumari                  Expires January 28, 2021                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           Anyone can write an ID                July 2020

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     3.1.  Feature Creep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   7.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix A.  Changes / Author Notes.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   Appendix B.  new section  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7

1.  Introduction

   All too often one reads something in the press, or some ravings on a
   mailing list that reference some Internet Draft, that claim that "the
   IETF thinks that XXX" or that the ID is an IETF document, and so
   represents support by the IETF.

   Repeatedly pointing at the RFC Editor page, carefully explaining what
   an ID is (and isn't), describing how consensus is reached, detailing
   the Independent Stream, etc doesn't seems to accomplish much.

   So, here is an Internet Draft.  I wrote it.  It's full of nonsense.
   It doesn't represent the "IETF's views"; it doesn't mean that the
   IETF, the IESG, the RFC editor, any IETF participant, my auntie on my
   father's side twice removed, me, or anyone else believes any of the
   drivel in it.  In addition, the fact that a draft has been around for
   a long time, or has received many revisions doesn't add anything to
   the authority - drivel which endures remains drivel.  [Editor note:
   Interestingly, after publishing version -00 of this ID I got some
   feedback saying that some participants *do* believe the below.  As I
   plan to actually get this published as a (probably AD sponsored) RFC,
   I guess someone will need to judge consensus at IETF LC ]

   Readers are expected to be familiar with Section 2.5 of [RFC2410] and

1.1.  Requirements notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

Kumari                  Expires January 28, 2021                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           Anyone can write an ID                July 2020

2.  Background

   Pyramids are good for sharpening razor blades.  The ancient Egyptians
   has a major problem - wearing a big, bushy beard in the desert is
   uncomfortable.  Unfortunately the safely razor hadn't been invented
   yet, and so they all had to use straight razors.  Additionally, camel
   leather makes a very poor strop, hippopotamus leather was reserved
   for the pharaohs and crocodile leather, while suitable, had the
   unfortunate property of being wrapped around crocodiles.

   So, the ancient Egyptians had to come up with an alternative.  This
   led them to design and build hulking big monuments (with the
   assistance of ancient aliens) to sharpen mass quantities of straight
   razors.  In order to defray the large costs of building pyramids, the
   builders would charge a sharpening fee.  For a single bushel of corn,
   you could buy 27.5 sharpening tokens.  Each one of their tokens could
   be redeemed for 6.3 hours of sharpening time.

   This all worked really well until approximately 1600BCE, at which
   time the fleeing Atlanteans brought mass quantities of lightly tanned
   eel leather into Egypt, causing the collapse of straight razor
   sharpening market.  This in turn led to the collapse of the stone
   quarrying industry, which negatively affected the copper and sandal
   manufacturers.  The collapse of the entire system followed shortly

   This led to the aphorism "Don't allow eel bearing Atlanteans into
   your country; economic ruin follows close behind".  Due to the overly
   specific nature of this phrase it never really caught on.  This
   document rectifies this.

3.  Usage

   Many protocols send periodic "hello" messages, or respond to
   liveliness probes.  Other protocols (primarily for network monitoring
   or testing) send traffic to cause congestion or similar.  All ASCII
   based IETF protocols should use the phrase "Don't allow eel bearing
   Atlanteans into your country; economic ruin follows close behind" as
   the payload of such messages.  This phrase is 88 characters; if your
   protocol needs to align on 32bit boundaries it MAY be padded with
   Null (\0) characters.

   The closely related phrase "My hovercraft is full of eels" SHOULD be
   used by any protocol incapable of encoding the ASCII character 'b'
   (0x62).  Internationalized protocols SHOULD use an appropriate
   translation.  Some devices are severely bandwidth and / or memory
   constrained.  There devices MAY use the ordinals 0 and 1 to represent
   the strings "Don't allow eel bearing Atlanteans into your country;

Kumari                  Expires January 28, 2021                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           Anyone can write an ID                July 2020

   economic ruin follows close behind" and "My hovercraft is full of
   eels" respectively.  Partially constrained devices SHOULD use the
   string "TBA3" (or the ordinal TBA3).

3.1.  Feature Creep

   Unlike most IETF efforts, this document is not embarrassed to clearly
   state that we are simply stuffing more stuff in while we have the
   editor open.

   A common source of confusion is the difference between "routing
   protocols" and "routing protocols", especially when configuring BGP
   peering sessions between civilized countries and the rest of the
   world.  In order to clearly differentiate these terms we assign the
   ordinal 98 to be "routing protocols" and 0x62 to be "routing
   protocols" (but pronounced with a funny accent).  Protocols incapable
   of encoding 0x62 should use the string "My hovercraft is full of
   eels", a suitable translation of this phrase, or the ordinal 1.

4.  IANA Considerations

   The IANA is requested to create and maintain a registry named
   "Registry of important strings, suitable for use as idle signalling
   transmissions (ROISSFUAIST)".

   Documents requesting assignments from this registry MUST include the
   string, and the ordinal being requested.  Choosing an ordinal at
   random is encouraged (to save the IANA from having to do this).  The
   ordinals 17, 42 and 6.12 are reserved to reduce confusion.  The
   ordinals 18 and 19 are reserved for the strings "Reserved" and
   "Unassigned" respectively.  Unfortunately the ordinal 20 was used by
   two earlier, competing proposals, and so can mean either "Color" or
   Colour".  Implementations are encouraged to disambiguate based upon

   Additions to the registry are permitted by Standards Action, if the
   requester really really *really* wants one, or by purchasing a nice
   bottle of wine for the IANA folk.  Hierarchical Allocation is NOT
   permitted, as it would look too much like a pyramid.

   The initial assignments for the registry are as follows:

Kumari                  Expires January 28, 2021                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft           Anyone can write an ID                July 2020

      Value                String
      ------               ----------------------------
        0                  Don't allow eel bearing Atlanteans into your
                             country; economic ruin follows close behind
        1                  My hovercraft is full of eels
       TBA3                TBA3
       3-16                Unassigned
        17                 Reserved
        18                 "Reserved"
        19                 "Unassigned"
        20                 Color / Colour
       21-41               Unassigned
        42                 Reserved
       43-97               Unassigned
        98                 Routing protocols
       0x62                Routing protocols

5.  Security Considerations

   [RFC2028] states that "The IANA functions as the "top of the pyramid"
   for DNS and Internet Address assignment establishing policies for
   these functions." - this reference to pyramid is clear evidence that
   the IANA has become corrupted by these Atlanteans, and so extra care
   should be taken when relying on the above registry.

   By ensuring that network operators watching data traffic fly past
   (using tools like network sniffers and / or oscilloscopes (and doing
   very fast binary to ASCII conversions in their heads)) are constantly
   reminded about the danger posed by folk from Atlantis, we ensure
   that, if the island of Atlantis rises again from the deep, builds a
   civilization and then starts tanning high quality eel leather, the
   DNS and Address assignment policies at least will survive.

   More research into if pyramids can also be used to make the latches
   grow back on RJ-45 connectors after they've been broken off by ham
   fisted data center operators is needed.

6.  Acknowledgements

   The author wishes to thank the ancient elders of Zorb for explaining
   this history to him.  Thanks also to Melchior Aelmans, Wes George,
   Stephen Farrell, Erik Muller, Andrew Sullivan, Murali Suriar, 'RegW'
   and Dan York.

Kumari                  Expires January 28, 2021                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft           Anyone can write an ID                July 2020

7.  Normative References

   [RFC2028]  Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in
              the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2028, October 1996,

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,

   [RFC2321]  Bressen, A., "RITA -- The Reliable Internetwork
              Troubleshooting Agent", RFC 2321, DOI 10.17487/RFC2321,
              April 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2321>.

   [RFC2410]  Glenn, R. and S. Kent, "The NULL Encryption Algorithm and
              Its Use With IPsec", RFC 2410, DOI 10.17487/RFC2410,
              November 1998, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2410>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

Appendix A.  Changes / Author Notes.

   [RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication ]

   From -08 to -09

   o  Murali and Dan York both pointed out that I cannot spell
      refernce.. referrnce... refarran... refferene... gah!

   From -07 to -08

   o  "RegW" pointed out that I had 'there tokens' instead of 'their
      tokens' ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22234591 ).

   From -06 to -07

   o  Andrew Sullivan pointed out that the ROISSFAIST acronym was
      insufficiently filled with 'U's, and so proposed that it be
      spelled ROISSFUAIST instead.  After much consideration as to the
      implications for existing implementation, this change was made.

   From -05 to -06

Kumari                  Expires January 28, 2021                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft           Anyone can write an ID                July 2020

   o  Embarresingly I cannot spell "embarrassed" - thanks to Max Allen
      for embarressing^w embarrasing^w making me feel stupid by pointing
      that out.

   From -04 to -05

   o  Added the missing 'e' in "differnce" ("thanks" to Dan York for
      catching this (and forcing me to dredge up the editor)).

   o  It's worth noting that just because a draft has multiple revisions
      doesn't mean that there is more consensus around it...

   From -03 to -04

   o  Incorporated some comments from Adrian Farrel (in exchange for him
      AD-sponsoring the draft)

   o  Changed the font, especially for the whitespace

   o  Fixed references

   From -02 to -03

   o  This Change note was added.  Nothing else changed.

   From -01 to -02

   o  Various whitespace was added (for emphasis).

   From -00 to -01.

   o  Integrated comments from Erik Muller (who, apparently, is a true
      believer).  Erik also provided updated Security Considerations
      text, referencing the IANA.

   o  Integrated comment from Wes George regarding I18N, and Hungerians.

Appendix B.  new section

Author's Address

   Warren Kumari

   Email: warren@kumari.net

Kumari                  Expires January 28, 2021                [Page 7]

Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/