[rfc-i] I need your "good" RFCs

Christian Huitema huitema at huitema.net
Thu Feb 11 16:22:27 PST 2021


On 2/11/2021 1:50 PM, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Good folks,
>
> I'm looking for people's favorite RFCs with respect to readability and
> understand-ability.  Do you have ones that have always impressed you as
> your favorites as how RFCs should be written to make their protocol/etc
> easily understood?  If so, send a note my way (ideally using this
> subject line).  I don't necessarily think you need to do a reply-all.
>
> [And yes, I recognize that this is a subjective ask, and everyone will
> have a different opinion as to "what is readable" and "what is
> understandable".  That's ok -- I'm asking for opinions and not facts].

Wes,

That's a bit what I was trying to do in RFC 8963. Using citation counts 
and web search referrals as a proxy for "RFC that appeal to a wide 
audience". Out of the 60 RFC listed in 3 sets of 20 samples for 1998, 
2008, and 2018, the 4 RFC with more than 100 references were:

RFC 2267 - Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service 
Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing
RFC 8446 - The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3
RFC 5326 - Licklider Transmission Protocol - Specification
RFC 2404 - The Use of HMAC-SHA-1-96 within ESP and AH

Clearly, out of about 9000 RFC, many more would meet the criteria. But 
there has to be something good about these 4.

-- Christian Huitema




More information about the rfc-interest mailing list