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

[tom petch]

On 12/02/2021 17:46, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> But of course citation != approval. The 675 citations are for RFC 3056,
>> which describes a mechanism deeply hated by many ISPs.
>
> Yeah, I'm looking for ones not necessarily cited (as popular protocols
> that are badly written and hard to understand are still frequently
> cited).  I do think that citations are highly valuable, and Christian's
> work in 8963 is definitely highly helpful.

I said earlier that TCP and the trio of SNMPv1 RFC were high on my list. 
  I think it worthwhile to say what are not, and top of that list would 
be the original, core specifications of IPv6.  I say this because of the 
thousands and thousands of posts about a range of topics along the lines 
of 'it meaans this', 'no it does not'; rinse and repeat.  Followers of 
the lists will recognise such as
M and O bits
site local
length of prefix and interface ID
header insertion
The text of this last was honed and honed and the meaning is completely 
clear.  That is, it has one meaning to the IPv6 community but Spring did 
not want to conform to that and so found another clear meaning, in what 
has been called the devil's paragraph.

Currently you may find 50 posts a day on the meaning of 'local' and 
'global'.

Quite why this cluster of RFC have been so troublesome I am unclear, but 
they are, as the posts show, and that in turn may well have hindered the 
deployment of IPv6.

Tom Petch

>