Request for Comments#Informational

The inception of the RFC format occurred in 1969 as part of the seminal ARPANET project. Today, it is the official publication channel for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and{{snd}} to some extent{{snd}} the global community of computer network researchers in general.

The authors of the first RFCs typewrote their work and circulated hard copies among the ARPA researchers. Unlike the modern RFCs, many of the early RFCs were actual Requests for Comments and were titled as such to avoid sounding too declarative and to encourage discussion.{{cite book | last=Hafner | first=Katie | last2=Lyon | first2=Matthew | title=Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet | publisher=Simon & Schuster | series=A Touchstone book | year=1996 | isbn=978-0-684-81201-4}}{{cite magazine |title=Meet the man who invented the instructions for the Internet |url=https://www.wired.com/2012/05/steve-crocker/ |magazine=Wired |access-date=December 18, 2018|date=May 18, 2012 |last1=Metz |first1=Cade }} The RFC leaves questions open and is written in a less formal style. This less formal style is now typical of Internet Draft documents, the precursor step before being approved as an RFC.

In December 1969, researchers began distributing new RFCs via the newly operational ARPANET. {{IETF RFC|1|link=no}}, titled "Host Software", was written by Steve Crocker of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and published on April 7, 1969.{{Ref RFC|1}} Although written by Steve Crocker, the RFC had emerged from an early working group discussion between Steve Crocker, Steve Carr, and Jeff Rulifson.

In {{Anchor|RFC 3}}{{IETF RFC|3|link=no}}, which first defined the RFC series, Crocker started attributing the RFC series to the Network Working Group. Rather than being a formal committee, it was a loose association of researchers interested in the ARPANET project. In effect, it included anyone who wanted to join the meetings and discussions about the project.

Many of the subsequent RFCs of the 1970s also came from UCLA, because UCLA is one of the first of what were Interface Message Processors (IMPs) on ARPANET. The Augmentation Research Center (ARC) at Stanford Research Institute, directed by Douglas Engelbart, is another of the four first of what were ARPANET nodes and the source of early RFCs. The ARC became the first network information center (InterNIC), which was managed by Elizabeth J. Feinler to distribute the RFCs along with other network information.{{cite journal |title= The Network Information Center and its Archives |doi-access=free|s2cid-access=free |journal= Annals of the History of Computing |author= Elizabeth J. Feinler |date= July–September 2010 |volume= 32 |issue=3 |pages= 83–89 |doi= 10.1109/MAHC.2010.54 |s2cid= 206443021 |author-link= Elizabeth J. Feinler }}

From 1969 until 1998, Jon Postel served as the RFC editor. On his death in 1998, his obituary was published as {{IETF RFC|2468|link=no}}.{{Ref RFC|2468}}

Following the expiration of the original ARPANET contract with the U.S. federal government, the Internet Society, acting on behalf of the IETF, contracted with the Networking Division of the University of Southern California (USC) Information Sciences Institute (ISI) to assume the editorship and publishing responsibilities under the direction of the IAB.

Sandy Ginoza joined USC/ISI in 1999 to work on RFC editing, and Alice Hagens in 2005.{{cite news |title= RFC Editor in Transition: Past, Present, and Future |author= Leslie Daigle |publisher= Cisco Systems |date= March 2010 |work= The Internet Protocol Journal |volume= 13 |number=1 |url= http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_13-1/131_rfc.html |access-date= August 17, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100920055557/http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_13-1/131_rfc.html |archive-date= Sep 20, 2010 }} Bob Braden took over the role of RFC project lead, while Joyce K. Reynolds continued to be part of the team until October 13, 2006.

In July 2007, streams of RFCs were defined, so that the editing duties could be divided. IETF documents came from IETF working groups or submissions sponsored by an IETF area director from the Internet Engineering Steering Group. The IAB can publish its own documents. A research stream of documents comes from the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), and an independent stream from other outside sources.{{Ref RFC|4844}} A new model was proposed in 2008, refined, and published in August 2009, splitting the task into several roles,{{Ref RFC|5620}} including the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG). The model was updated in 2012,{{Ref RFC|6635}}, and 2020.{{Ref RFC|8728}}

The streams were also refined in December 2009, with standards defined for their style.{{Ref RFC|5741}}

In January 2010, the RFC Editor function was moved to a contractor, Association Management Solutions, with Glenn Kowack serving as interim series editor.{{cite web |title= RFC Editor Transition Announcement |author= Glenn Kowack |date= January 7, 2010 |url= http://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=7324&tid=1263251951 |archive-date=2011-06-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629132754/https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=7324&tid=1263251951}} In late 2011, Heather Flanagan was hired as the permanent RFC Series Editor (RSE). Also at that time, an RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) was created.{{cite web |title=The RFC Series Editor and the Series Reorganization |url=https://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/ |access-date=April 5, 2013 }}

In 2020, the IAB convened the RFC Editor Future Development program to discuss potential changes to the RFC Editor model. The results of the program were included the RFC Editor Model (Version 3) as defined in {{IETF RFC|9280|link=no}}, published in June 2022.{{Ref RFC|9280}} Generally, the new model is intended to clarify responsibilities and processes for defining and implementing policies related to the RFC series and the RFC Editor function. Changes in the new model included establishing the position of the RFC Consulting Editor, the RFC Series Working Group (RSWG), and the RFC Series Approval Board (RSAB). It also established a new Editorial Stream for the RFC Series and concluded the RSOC. The role of the RSE was changed to the RFC Series Consulting Editor (RSCE). In September 2022, Alexis Rossi was appointed to that position.{{cite web |url=https://www.ietf.org/blog/rsce-appointment/ |title=Alexis Rossi appointed as RFC Series Consulting Editor |access-date=August 19, 2023}}

Requests for Comments were originally produced in non-reflowable text format. In August 2019, the format was changed so that new documents can be viewed optimally in devices with varying display sizes.{{cite web |url=https://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/format-faq/ |title=RFC Format Change FAQ}}

The RFC Editor assigns each RFC a serial number. Once assigned a number and published, an RFC is never rescinded or modified; if the document requires amendments, the authors publish a revised document. Therefore, some RFCs supersede others; the superseded RFCs are said to be deprecated, obsolete, or obsoleted by the superseding RFC. Together, the serialized RFCs compose a continuous historical record of the evolution of Internet standards and practices. The RFC process is documented in {{IETF RFC|2026|link=no}} (The Internet Standards Process, Revision 3).{{cite web

|url= //www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index2.html

|title= RFC Index

|access-date= May 26, 2008

|date= May 25, 2008

|publisher= RFC Editor

}}

The RFC production process differs from the standardization process of formal standards organizations such as International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Internet technology experts may submit an Internet Draft without support from an external institution. Standards-track RFCs are published with approval from the IETF, and are usually produced by experts participating in IETF Working Groups, which first publish an Internet Draft. This approach facilitates initial rounds of peer review before documents mature into RFCs.{{Cite IETF |title=IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures |rfc=2418}}

The RFC tradition of pragmatic, experience-driven, after-the-fact standards authorship accomplished by individuals or small working groups can have important advantages{{clarify|date=April 2018}} over the more formal, committee-driven process typical of ISO and national standards bodies.{{FOLDOC|Request+for+Comments}}

Most RFCs use a common set of terms such as "MUST" and "NOT RECOMMENDED" (as defined by {{IETF RFC|2119|8174|leadout=and|link=no}}), augmented Backus–Naur form (ABNF) ({{IETF RFC|5234|link=no}}) as a meta-language, and simple text-based formatting, in order to keep the RFCs consistent and easy to understand.

The RFC series contains three sub-series for IETF RFCs: BCP, FYI, and STD. Best Current Practice (BCP) is a sub-series of mandatory IETF RFCs not on standards track. For Your Information (FYI) is a sub-series of informational RFCs promoted by the IETF as specified in {{IETF RFC|1150|link=no}} (FYI 1). In 2011, {{IETF RFC|6360|link=no}} obsoleted FYI 1 and concluded this sub-series. Standard (STD) used to be the third and highest maturity level of the IETF standards track specified in {{IETF RFC|2026|link=no}} (BCP 9). In 2011 {{IETF RFC|6410|link=no}} (a new part of BCP 9) reduced the standards track to two maturity levels.{{citation needed|date=April 2021}}

There are five streams of RFCs: IETF, IRTF, IAB, independent submission,{{cite web

|url=https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/

|title= Independent Submissions

|access-date= January 5, 2018

|publisher= RFC Editor

}} and Editorial. Only the IETF creates BCPs and RFCs on the standards track. The IAB publishes informational documents relating to policy or architecture. The IRTF publishes the results of research, either as informational documents or as experiments. Independent submissions are published

at the discretion of the Independent Submissions Editor. Non-IETF documents are reviewed by the IESG for conflicts with IETF work. IRTF and independent  RFCs generally contain relevant information or experiments for the Internet at large not in conflict with IETF work. compare {{IETF RFC|4846|5742|5744|leadout=and|link=no}}.{{cite IETF

|title=Independent Submissions to the RFC Editor

|rfc=4846

|last1=Klensin

|first1=John

|last2=Thaler

|first2=David

|date=July 2007

|publisher=IAB}}>{{cite IETF

|title=IESG Procedures for Handling of Independent and IRTF Stream Submissions

|rfc=5742

|last1=Alvestrand

|first1=Harald

|last2=Housley

|first2=Russ

|date=December 2009

|publisher=IETF}} The Editorial Stream is used to effect editorial policy changes across the RFC series (see {{IETF RFC|9280|link=no}}).

The official source for RFCs on the World Wide Web is the RFC Datatracker. Almost any published RFC can be retrieved via a URL of the form https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5000, shown for {{IETF RFC|5000|link=no}}.

Every RFC is submitted as plain ASCII text and is published in that form, but may also be available in other formats.

For easy access to the metadata of an RFC, including abstract, keywords, author(s), publication date, errata, status, and especially later updates, the RFC Editor site offers a search form with many features. A redirection sets some efficient parameters, example: rfc:5000.

The official International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) of the RFC series is 2070-1721.

Not all RFCs are standards.{{cite web

|title=Are all RFCs Internet standards documents?

|url=https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#allstds

|access-date= March 16, 2018

|publisher= RFC Editor

}}

Each RFC is assigned a designation with regard to status within the Internet standardization process. This status is one of the following: Informational, Experimental, Best Current Practice, Standards Track, or Historic.{{Ref RFC|1796}}

Once submitted, accepted, and published, an RFC cannot be changed. Errata may be submitted, which are published separately. More significant changes require a new submission which will receive a new serial number.{{cite web

|url=https://www.mnot.net/blog/2018/07/31/read_rfc

|title=How to Read an RFC

|last=Nottingham

|first=Mark

|date=2018-07-31

|access-date=2023-09-18

|quote=RFCs are an archival series of documents; they can’t change[.]

}}

{{Main article|Internet Standard#Internet Standards}}

Standards track documents are further divided into Proposed Standard and Internet Standard documents.{{cite IETF |title=Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels |rfc=6410 |last1=Housley |first1=Russell |last2=Crocker |first2=Dave |last3=Burger |first3=Eric |date=October 2011 |publisher=IETF }}

Only the IETF, represented by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), can approve standards-track RFCs.

If an RFC becomes an Internet Standard (STD), it is assigned an STD number but retains its RFC number. The definitive list of Internet Standards is the Official Internet Protocol Standards. Previously STD 1 used to maintain a snapshot of the list.{{cite ietf |rfc= 7100 |title=Retirement of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" Summary Document}}

When an Internet Standard is updated, its STD number stays the same, now referring to a new RFC or set of RFCs. A given Internet Standard, STD n, may be RFCs x and y at a given time, but later the same standard may be updated to be RFC z instead. For example, in 2007 {{IETF RFC|3700|link=no}} was an Internet Standard—STD 1—and in May 2008 it was replaced with {{IETF RFC|5000|link=no}}, so {{IETF RFC|3700|link=no}} changed to Historic, {{IETF RFC|5000|link=no}} became an Internet Standard, and {{As of|2008|05|lc=on}} STD 1 is {{IETF RFC|5000|link=no}}. {{As of|2013|12|lc=on}} {{IETF RFC|5000|link=no}} is replaced by {{IETF RFC|7100|link=no}}, updating {{IETF RFC|2026|link=no}} to no longer use STD 1.

(Best Current Practices work in a similar fashion; BCP n refers to a certain RFC or set of RFCs, but which RFC or RFCs may change over time).

An informational RFC can be nearly anything from April 1 jokes to widely recognized essential RFCs like Domain Name System Structure and Delegation ({{IETF RFC|1591|link=no}}). Some informational RFCs formed the FYI sub-series.

An experimental RFC can be an IETF document or an individual submission to the RFC Editor. A draft is designated experimental if it is unclear the proposal will work as intended or unclear if the proposal will be widely adopted. An experimental RFC may be promoted to standards track if it becomes popular and works well.{{cite book |url=//www.ietf.org/tao.html |title=The Tao of IETF |chapter=7.5. Informational and Experimental RFCs |chapter-url=//www.ietf.org/tao.html#rfc.section.6.5 |access-date=November 26, 2017}}

The Best Current Practice subseries collects administrative documents and other texts which are considered as official rules and not only informational, but which do not affect over the wire data. The border between standards track and BCP is often unclear. If a document only affects the Internet Standards Process, like BCP 9,{{cite IETF |title=The Internet Standards Process – Revision 3 |bcp=9 |last=Bradner |first=Scott O. |author-link=Scott Bradner |date=October 1996 |publisher=IETF |access-date=October 25, 2017 }} or IETF administration, it is clearly a BCP. If it only defines rules and regulations for Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) registries it is less clear; most of these documents are BCPs, but some are on the standards track.

The BCP series also covers technical recommendations for how to practice Internet standards; for instance, the recommendation to use source filtering to make DoS attacks more difficult ({{IETF RFC|2827|link=no}}: "Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing") is [//tools.ietf.org/html/bcp38 BCP 38].

A historic RFC is one that the technology defined by the RFC is no longer recommended for use, which differs from "Obsoletes" header in a replacement RFC. For example, {{IETF RFC|821|link=no}} (SMTP) itself is obsoleted by various newer RFCs, but SMTP itself is still "current technology", so it is not in "Historic" status.{{cite web

|url= https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/designating-rfcs-as-historic.html

|title= IESG Statement on Designating RFCs as Historic

|access-date= April 14, 2016

|date= July 20, 2014

|publisher= IETF

}} However, since BGP version 4 has entirely superseded earlier BGP versions, the RFCs describing those earlier versions, such as {{IETF RFC|1267|link=no}}, have been designated historic.

Status unknown is used for some very old RFCs, where it is unclear which status the document would get if it were published today. Some of these RFCs would not be published at all today; an early RFC was often just that: a simple Request for Comments, not intended to specify a protocol, administrative procedure, or anything else for which the RFC series is used today.{{cite web| url=https://www.isc.org/rfcs/| title=IETF Standards Written by ISC Contributors| date=September 10, 2021| publisher=Internet Systems Consortium| access-date=2022-04-11| quote=Many of the early RFC documents have status “unknown” because they come from the long-gone era when an RFC really was just a request for comments.| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220405182509/https://www.isc.org/rfcs/| archive-date=2022-04-05|url-status=live}}

The general rule is that original authors (or their employers, if their employment conditions so stipulate) retain copyright unless they make an explicit transfer of their rights.{{Cite web|url=https://trustee.ietf.org/about/faq/#reproducing-rfcs|title=Reproducing RFCs|publisher=IETF Trust|access-date=2021-08-12}}

An independent body, the IETF Trust, holds the copyright for some RFCs and for all others it is granted a license by the authors that allows it to reproduce RFCs.{{Cite IETF |title=Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust |rfc=5378 | |last1=Bradner |first1=Scott |last2=Contreras |first2=Jorge |date=November 2008 |publisher=IETF}} The Internet Society is referenced on many RFCs prior to RFC4714 as the copyright owner, but it transferred its rights to the IETF Trust.{{Cite web|url=https://trustee.ietf.org/about/faq/#copyright|title=Reproducing RFCs|publisher=IETF Trust|access-date=2021-08-13}}

• Best current practice
• Internet Experiment Note
• List of RFCs

{{Reflist}}

{{Wikidata property | P892 }}

• [https://rfc-editor.org RFC Editor]
• [https://rfc-editor.org/rfc.html RFC Database]
• [https://rfc-editor.org/errata.php RFC Errata]
• [https://rfc-editor.org/rfcfaq.html RFC Frequently Asked Questions]
• [https://rfc-editor.org/rfc-index2.html RFC Index] (text)
• [https://rfc-editor.org/search/standards.php Official Internet Protocol Standards]
• [https://ietf.org/rfc.html IETF's RFC page]
• [https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/ RFC Index] (HTML) With the text of each RFC, also mentions what other RFCs this one "updates" or is "updated by".

{{Authority control}}

Category:Computer-related introductions in 1969