3 ms·

The linked source RFC is a pleasant read too: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2324 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2324

• falleng0d 2y ago
  Now. I didn't know about the RFC. This is so good. I hope we can continue to advance this field with good humor, and good coffee.
  • ctm92 2y ago
    There are quite some RFC with humor, most prominently probably RFC1149 and its extension RFC2549
    • magicalhippo 2y ago
      It's even been updated[1] for IPv6, so no reason not to use it! [1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6214 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6214
    • sameerds 2y ago
      IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1149 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1149 IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2549 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2549
    • penwielder 2y ago
      For anyone who wants to explore further, Wikipedia has a list page for these RFCs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_Request_for_Comments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_Request_for... There are a lot more of them than I had realized before finding that. Some years even had multiple.
• dsab 2y ago
  I love those RFC documents. I am currently working with CCSDS documents and they are total trash comparing to RFC. For example when I read documents about how TCP works or TLS works I see that it has been written by professionals with experience and vision. And CCSDS documents have been written by bureaucrats who have never written a line of code in their lives.