April Fools' Day Request for Comments

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Peg DHCP
)

A Request for Comments (RFC), in the context of Internet governance, is a type of publication from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Society (ISOC), usually describing methods, behaviors, research, or innovations applicable to the working of the Internet and Internet-connected systems.

Almost every

RFC Editor has published one or more humorous Request for Comments (RFC) documents, following in the path blazed by the June 1973 RFC 527 called ARPAWOCKY, a parody of Lewis Carroll's nonsense poem "Jabberwocky". The following list also includes humorous
RFCs published on other dates.

List of April Fools' Day RFCs

1978
A parody of the TCP/IP documentation style. For a long time it was specially marked in the RFC index with "note date of issue".

1989

1990
Updated by RFC 2549 in 1999; see below. Describes protocol for transmitting IP packets by homing pigeon.
In 2001, RFC 1149 was actually implemented
Linux User Group
.
See also RFC 6214, as noted below. Describes the adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6.
Further information: IP over Avian Carriers

1991

1992

1993

1994
Attributed to William Shakespeare.

1995

1996

1997

1998
This RFC is not solely for entertainment; the described protocol has regularly been implemented at hacker events in Europe.
Further information: Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol

1999
Further information: IP over Avian Carriers

2000
Concerning the practicalities of the infinite monkey theorem.

2001

2002
Parody of "Everything over IP and IP over Everything"[2] and the 2000–2001 California electricity crisis.

2003
Proposal for the 'evil bit', as an option in the IPv4 packet header. Later, this became a synonym for all attempts to seek simple technical solutions for difficult human social problems which require the willing participation of malicious actors.
Further information: Evil bit

2004

2005
Notable for containing PDP-10 assembly language code nearly 22 years after the manufacturer ceased production of the PDP-10, and for being technically possible as opposed to many of these other proposals.

2006

An April 1st RFC was not published this year, but an announcement on the IETF list about the appointment of the Sesame Street character Bert as member of the IAB appears to have been the April Fools' Day 2006 stunt.

2007

Further information on its implementation: Semaphore Flag Signaling System
Further information on competing ways of using flags to convey messages: Flag semaphore

2008

2009
Implemented on Facebook by the author, in the process of writing the RFC.[3]

2010

2011
Further information: IP over Avian Carriers

2012

2013

2014
Updates
HTTP response code 418 I'm a Teapot, for teapots to use when unable to brew coffee
.
Further information: Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol

2015
fibers and copper cables
all the time.
In an approach similar to the now deprecated
ECN) tell the sender to shut up. The user responsible for the traffic MUST be made aware of the contents of an RECN message by means of text-to-speech, or pop-ups
if the audio channel is muted.

2016

An April 1st RFC was not published this year.[4]

2017

Takes a rather mathematical approach to use the 128-bit
IP over avian carriers
.
As the
hop-by-hop
option header.
avian carriers
.

2018
A heartfelt cry to end packet discrimination at the IP level, where they frequently (even in this day and age) are terminated prematurely, based on color,
IP version
!
Proposes to use 128-bit Unicode to facilitate internationalization of IPv6, since the 1.114.112 code points of the current implementation of Unicode is deemed insufficient for the future. IPv6 addresses may be represented by a single U+128 glyph, to reduce stress on the eyes of network administrators.
If implemented, it would obsolete
RFC 8135
, because "[i]t was found to be too complex to implement anyway".

2019
A 'response/request' protocol similar to
HTTP/1.1 but where clients send a response to the server (e.g. "Hello World. My payload includes a trailing CRLF.") to which the server answers with a request (e.g. GET /hello.txt), like in the Jeopardy!
game. The Hypertext Double Jeopardy Protocol (HTJ2P) (described in Appendix A) inverses the semantics of HTJP again.
The authors contend that the
social security number, and an SSN pointer record
) they hope to create end-to-end, holistic network management.

2020
A proposal to use UTF-8 to obfuscate (and help replace) textual IP addresses, to coerce a small minority of people to use the DNS instead of sticking to (and mixing up) plain IP addresses.
Dismisses
round trip times
, which (depending on the observer) could reach zero. This may cause havoc among several protocols, which should be fixed "in time" before things break.

2021
Since the
walled gardens and may even resort to traffic imprisonment. By the way: if you are interested in joining the Protocol Police, contact your localhost
.

2022
Discourages the practice of introducing
software defects, to reduce costs and lessen security impacts. By introducing some best current practices
the authors hope to get rid of them: "Authors MUST NOT implement bugs. If bugs are introduced in code, they MUST be clearly documented."
Known problems with hexadecimal representation of numbers can be avoided by replacing its alphabet of 0-9 and A-F with two octal ranges: 0-7 and the letters 'cjzwfsbv' (to represent values 8-15 in a bitwise elegant way).

2023

As is customary in light novels, a 'death flag' indicates the increased likelihood of a swift demise of the character. Transferred to TCP, the DTH flag in the packet header could lead to smoother and more attractive session narratives.
Finally, a formalized way (with a ABNF grammar description) to properly describe the interaction between cats and containers, including the occasional ball of yarn.
The AI Sarcasm Detection Protocol (ASDP) is a framework for detecting sarcasm in AI systems (written with the help of ChatGPT). Detecting sarcasm may help improve AI - human intercommunication.

2024

The recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) such as large language models enable the design of the Faster than Light speed Protocol (FLIP) for Internet. FLIP provides a way to avoid congestion, enhance security, and deliver faster packets on the Internet by using AI to predict future packets at the receiving peer before they arrive. This document describes the protocol, its various encapsulations, and some operational considerations.

Other humorous RFCs
Transcript of a talk of the
schizophrenic chatbot PARRY with the computer simulated psychiatrist ELIZA (a.k.a 'The Doctor') which both fail the Turing test
with flying colours.
A very '
nonsense poem 'Jabberwocky
'.
A
array indexing
is problematic since the olden days.
A parody of the Christmas carol 'The Twelve Days of Christmas', where computer problems pile up and the IT staff is swamped, like on a regular day.
Introducing the
Encapsulating Security Payload to provide authentication and integrity, but without confidentiality
.

Submission of April Fools' Day RFCs

The RFC Editor accepts submission of properly formatted April Fools' Day RFCs from the general public, and considers them for publication in the same year if received at least two weeks prior to April 1st.[6][7] This practice of publishing April Fool's Day RFCs is specifically acknowledged in the instructions memo for RFC authors, with a tongue-in-cheek note saying: "Note that in past years the RFC Editor has sometimes published serious documents with April 1 dates. Readers who cannot distinguish satire by reading the text may have a future in marketing."[6]

References

  1. ^ "RFC 1149 implemented". Blug.linux.no. Archived from the original on 2011-10-04. Retrieved 2012-03-18.
  2. doi:10.17487/RFC5218. RFC 5218
    . Informational.
  3. ^ E. Vyncke. "IPv6 over the Facebook Social Network".
  4. ^ Flanagan, Heather (2 April 2016). "hey, guys, where 1 april 2016 RFC. Ups..." rfc-i (Mailing list).
  5. doi:10.17487/RFC4115. RFC 4115
    . Informational.
  6. ^ a b "Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors". Archived from the original on 2012-03-27. Retrieved 2012-03-18.
  7. ^ "IETF RFC-Editor FAQ, Q20: How can I submit an April 1st RFC?". Rfc-editor.org. 2011-07-21. Retrieved 2012-03-18.

Further reading

External links

  • Marsan, Carolyn Duffy (April 1, 2005). "Yet Another Foolish Network Protocol". Network World – on RFC 3751 and April Fools' Day RFCs in general.
  • Limoncelli, Thomas A.; Peter H. Salus (2007). The Complete April Fools' Day RFCs. Peer-to-Peer Communications.
    ISBN 978-1-57398-042-5
    .
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=April_Fools%27_Day_Request_for_Comments&oldid=1216842608#List_of_April_Fools'_RFCs"