5 ms·

That blog post is a perfect example of when RFC5737 should be used. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5737/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5737/

Insimwytim 5mo ago
On a side note, buttons icons on this page won't load without javascript. I cannot comprehend what would justify such decision.
- jermaustin1 5mo ago
  Without justifying it, the reason is simple. They are using a front end framework (bootstrap) that many developers use/understand that also supports 99.9% of browsers. Running a browser without javascript that you still want graphics to display (so not a screenreader or text-based-browser), is part of the .1% they are willing to disappoint. Do I think it is overkill? Sure. Do I still use jQuery at work even though the vast majority of its once handy features are now baked into JS in the browser by default? Of course.
  - fc417fc802 5mo ago
    How do you jump straight from JS to screen reader or text based browser? What happened to HTML+CSS viewer? Isn't reading an RFC the perfect poster child for an activity that ought to consist of viewing a noninteractive document?
    - hulitu 4mo ago
      > What happened to HTML+CSS viewer? S in https stands for "script". /s
- UqWBcuFx6NV4r 5mo ago
  It’ll be a run-on effect of whatever framework they are using, and they very justifiably don’t want to bother catering to you. Having JS disabled in 2026 and complaining about sites not behaving is simply a performative act.
  - sroussey 5mo ago
    [flagged]
  - lazide 5mo ago
    It’s basic self defense. Who runs around the web in 2026 allowing random JS? Might as well be licking seats on the subway.
    - lmm 5mo ago
      If you trust your browser it's fine, and if you don't then both CSS and SVG are significantly more risky.
      - sysguest 5mo ago
        > then both CSS and SVG are significantly more risky. how???
      - margalabargala 5mo ago
        This isn't true at all. Anything SVG does maliciously, it does by containing JavaScript, so SVG's worst case is a subset of JS's.
      - fc417fc802 5mo ago
        Remind me again what the ratio of browser sandbox escapes coupled with full RCE is between JS, CSS, and SVG?
    - Telaneo 5mo ago
      > Who runs around the web in 2026 allowing random JS? Within a rounding error, 100% of people on the internet.
      - lazide 4mo ago
        It’s a lot higher pct when you count vpns with JS filtering, ad blockers, etc.
- ernsheong 5mo ago
  Are you in 2006 or 2026?
- simoncion 5mo ago
  What "buttons icons"? When I set the "javascript.enabled" preference in Firefox 151 to "false" and reload the page for RFC 5737, I get a "Javascript disabled? Blah blah blah blah." complaint near the top of the page. I do not get * the useless-to-me "document history" bar graph at the top * the automatic switch to Dark Mode(TM) that I don't care about * functional pull down menus at the very tippy top of the page that are entirely unrelated to RFCs that I give zero shits about The "without javascript" version of the page seems to me to be otherwise identical. Amusingly, the "Email authors", "IPR", & etc buttons switch to the pages they reference notably faster with Javascript disabled. What broken things were you seeing that I haven't mentioned? Were you using Chrom(e|ium)? Safari?
  - Insimwytim 4mo ago
    > I set the "javascript.enabled" preference in Firefox 151 to "false" and reload the page Do it the other way around - disable javascript first, clear cache/open incognito (maybe close/open browser after that just for good measure), then go to the page. If you load it with javascript first - buttons icons stay loaded after you disable it.
    - simoncion 4mo ago
      The only thing that I don't do in Firefox's "Private Browsing" mode is play a handful of stupid little in-browser games that save progress in a cookie or whatever. I even have Firefox set up to open in "Private Browsing" by default. Here's what I did just now: 1) Quit Firefox 2) Opened Firefox 3) Visited 'about:config' 4) Set 'javascript.enabled' to 'false' 5) Quit Firefox 6) Opened Firefox 7) Re-visited 'about:config' and verified that 'javascript.enabled' is still set to 'false' 8) Visited <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5737/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5737/> It's still exactly like I reported it was. The "Manage browsing data" thing accessed through Firefox's regular settings dialog doesn't indicate that there is any data saved by any ietf.org subdomain, and when I watch the Network pane, a ctrl+shift+f5 reload of the RFC5737 page indicates that the page loads everything from an ietf.org subdomain... so the saved resources from one of the like eight domains in that list aren't relevant.
usr1106 5mo ago
Nice. But unfortunately these addresses are hard to remember and "nobody" recognizes them when reading examples. One of those "standards" that have been a great idea, but lack practical relevance.
- simoncion 5mo ago
  > But unfortunately these addresses are hard to remember and "nobody" recognizes them when reading examples. Mmm. It's pretty easy to put three IPv4 /24s on a sticky note on your monitor. I think it's not unfair to say that if one can remember every fact related to one's job, then one has a job with a very, very small scope. Also, this is another great reason to use IPv6. The v6 documentation prefix is '2001:db8::/32'... plenty of space for example subnets and easy to remember.
- drdaeman 5mo ago
  Anyone who writes technical documentation about networking knows the key ranges, and at least TEST-NET-1 (192.0.2/24) is pretty easy to remember. You only gotta look it up a few times, instead of being sloppy and justifying so with “no one cares anyway”. It partly because attitudes like that is why software is a mess. Too few people care about correct semantics, everyone is satisfied with whatever sticks. From lists for sets, to tag soup instead of markup, and so on - all the way to modern code slop. </rant>
- lxgr 5mo ago
  For me it's the opposite: I usually misremember 192.0.0.0/8 as being entirely private, so for 192.0.2.0/32, I usually assume that the example given is supposed to be a private v4 address/network.
- scbrg 4mo ago
  > But unfortunately these addresses are hard to remember and "nobody" recognizes them when reading examples. How does that matter? The point isn't that the reader should know that "oh, this is a reserved address". The point is that there should be no room for the address that's actually being used by someone to end up being used incorrectly just because it showed up in some random documentation. Much like how you probably wouldn't be thrilled if your phone number was used as an example in some random documentation somewhere.

Insimwytim 5mo ago

On a side note, buttons icons on this page won't load without javascript. I cannot comprehend what would justify such decision.

jermaustin1 5mo ago
Without justifying it, the reason is simple. They are using a front end framework (bootstrap) that many developers use/understand that also supports 99.9% of browsers. Running a browser without javascript that you still want graphics to display (so not a screenreader or text-based-browser), is part of the .1% they are willing to disappoint. Do I think it is overkill? Sure. Do I still use jQuery at work even though the vast majority of its once handy features are now baked into JS in the browser by default? Of course.
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  How do you jump straight from JS to screen reader or text based browser? What happened to HTML+CSS viewer? Isn't reading an RFC the perfect poster child for an activity that ought to consist of viewing a noninteractive document?
  - hulitu 4mo ago
    > What happened to HTML+CSS viewer? S in https stands for "script". /s
UqWBcuFx6NV4r 5mo ago
It’ll be a run-on effect of whatever framework they are using, and they very justifiably don’t want to bother catering to you. Having JS disabled in 2026 and complaining about sites not behaving is simply a performative act.
- sroussey 5mo ago
  [flagged]
- lazide 5mo ago
  It’s basic self defense. Who runs around the web in 2026 allowing random JS? Might as well be licking seats on the subway.
  - lmm 5mo ago
    If you trust your browser it's fine, and if you don't then both CSS and SVG are significantly more risky.
    - sysguest 5mo ago
      > then both CSS and SVG are significantly more risky. how???
    - margalabargala 5mo ago
      This isn't true at all. Anything SVG does maliciously, it does by containing JavaScript, so SVG's worst case is a subset of JS's.
    - fc417fc802 5mo ago
      Remind me again what the ratio of browser sandbox escapes coupled with full RCE is between JS, CSS, and SVG?
  - Telaneo 5mo ago
    > Who runs around the web in 2026 allowing random JS? Within a rounding error, 100% of people on the internet.
    - lazide 4mo ago
      It’s a lot higher pct when you count vpns with JS filtering, ad blockers, etc.
ernsheong 5mo ago
Are you in 2006 or 2026?
simoncion 5mo ago
What "buttons icons"? When I set the "javascript.enabled" preference in Firefox 151 to "false" and reload the page for RFC 5737, I get a "Javascript disabled? Blah blah blah blah." complaint near the top of the page. I do not get * the useless-to-me "document history" bar graph at the top * the automatic switch to Dark Mode(TM) that I don't care about * functional pull down menus at the very tippy top of the page that are entirely unrelated to RFCs that I give zero shits about The "without javascript" version of the page seems to me to be otherwise identical. Amusingly, the "Email authors", "IPR", & etc buttons switch to the pages they reference notably faster with Javascript disabled. What broken things were you seeing that I haven't mentioned? Were you using Chrom(e|ium)? Safari?
- Insimwytim 4mo ago
  > I set the "javascript.enabled" preference in Firefox 151 to "false" and reload the page Do it the other way around - disable javascript first, clear cache/open incognito (maybe close/open browser after that just for good measure), then go to the page. If you load it with javascript first - buttons icons stay loaded after you disable it.
  - simoncion 4mo ago
    The only thing that I don't do in Firefox's "Private Browsing" mode is play a handful of stupid little in-browser games that save progress in a cookie or whatever. I even have Firefox set up to open in "Private Browsing" by default. Here's what I did just now: 1) Quit Firefox 2) Opened Firefox 3) Visited 'about:config' 4) Set 'javascript.enabled' to 'false' 5) Quit Firefox 6) Opened Firefox 7) Re-visited 'about:config' and verified that 'javascript.enabled' is still set to 'false' 8) Visited <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5737/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5737/> It's still exactly like I reported it was. The "Manage browsing data" thing accessed through Firefox's regular settings dialog doesn't indicate that there is any data saved by any ietf.org subdomain, and when I watch the Network pane, a ctrl+shift+f5 reload of the RFC5737 page indicates that the page loads everything from an ietf.org subdomain... so the saved resources from one of the like eight domains in that list aren't relevant.

usr1106 5mo ago

Nice. But unfortunately these addresses are hard to remember and "nobody" recognizes them when reading examples. One of those "standards" that have been a great idea, but lack practical relevance.

simoncion 5mo ago
> But unfortunately these addresses are hard to remember and "nobody" recognizes them when reading examples. Mmm. It's pretty easy to put three IPv4 /24s on a sticky note on your monitor. I think it's not unfair to say that if one can remember every fact related to one's job, then one has a job with a very, very small scope. Also, this is another great reason to use IPv6. The v6 documentation prefix is '2001:db8::/32'... plenty of space for example subnets and easy to remember.
drdaeman 5mo ago
Anyone who writes technical documentation about networking knows the key ranges, and at least TEST-NET-1 (192.0.2/24) is pretty easy to remember. You only gotta look it up a few times, instead of being sloppy and justifying so with “no one cares anyway”. It partly because attitudes like that is why software is a mess. Too few people care about correct semantics, everyone is satisfied with whatever sticks. From lists for sets, to tag soup instead of markup, and so on - all the way to modern code slop. </rant>
lxgr 5mo ago
For me it's the opposite: I usually misremember 192.0.0.0/8 as being entirely private, so for 192.0.2.0/32, I usually assume that the example given is supposed to be a private v4 address/network.
scbrg 4mo ago
> But unfortunately these addresses are hard to remember and "nobody" recognizes them when reading examples. How does that matter? The point isn't that the reader should know that "oh, this is a reserved address". The point is that there should be no room for the address that's actually being used by someone to end up being used incorrectly just because it showed up in some random documentation. Much like how you probably wouldn't be thrilled if your phone number was used as an example in some random documentation somewhere.