[rfc-i] RFC means RFC, not Request For Comment

Frank Ellermann hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz at gmail.com
Tue Oct 25 08:56:55 PDT 2011

On 25 October 2011 15:48, Eric Burger wrote:

> The first proposal is to register the image, in
> ASCII art as well as potentially a nice PNG for
> HTML and PDF versions of documents, that captures
> the letters RFC.  Since RFC no longer means Request
> For Comments, let's register this special term.

So far RFC still means "request for comments", and
it apparently even works as it used to work for at
least one author.  You thought that independent RFCs
are too expensive.  Now you propose to spend money
for some kind of registration.  The IETF Trust is
already burdened with defending the IETF logo on
virtual T-shirts in 2nd Live or informal LinkedIn
groups (complete with legal advice, minutes, and whatever it takes for
a Trust meeting).  Everybody
knows what RFC is, even en.Wikipedia got this right.

> This is important as it also prevents someone
> someplace else to start publishing things called
> RFC's.

Well, I'm certainly annoyed when somebody confuses
iab.org and iab.net, but that's only me.  Somebody
trying to "fork" RFCs has no chance.  And IETF is
already protected (with silly side-effects such as
the obligation to defend it).

> The second proposal is to include the image, and
> perhaps a large-scale block ASCII art version of
> the RFC logo on the front matter page of an IETF
> standards track publication.

I dislike the boilerplate on the first page of the
ASCII editions (incl. tools.ietf.org/html).  If your
proposal only affects PDFs it might be a good idea.

And you could use the existing protected IETF logo
for IETF RFC PDFs.  For STD 1 something really old
and visibly compatible with stacks of punched cards
is brilliant:  Who needs a logo when they get real
formfeed characters after 58 lines with up to 72-3
US-ASCII char.s per line?


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list