Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-fiftyyears-00> (Fifty Years of RFCs)

From: Darius Kazemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 21:35:28 -0700

Hi,

I recently learned of the Fifty Years of RFCs draft (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-fiftyyears/) and the associated
call for comment. I'd like to offer some commentary on it from what may be
a unique position: I've spent 2019 to date reading and blogging about each
RFC sequentially starting with RFC 1.

In other words, I've been running an RFC history project, and it's been
pretty popular.

One blessing of this project is I get to talk on almost a daily basis with
what I'd call your typical software developer or even your typical internet
user about the RFC series and its history. And there is one piece of
historical context around RFCs that nobody seems to understand, and this
draft might be a good place to set the record straight.

Simply put: it would be nice to highlight that the original RFCs were
coordinated using a physical mailing list of postal addresses and then
distributed via post. That these were sometimes typewritten, and sometimes
even handwritten (in the cases of RFCs 7 and 8). That there were people
manually compiling these lists of addresses, making carbon copies (or
similar), and mailing them out (as seen in early RFCs like RFC 24).

This may seem like a minor note, but I bring this up because I can't
overstate how mind-blowing it is for people to realize that of COURSE these
early inventors and experimenters had to use the postal service. They were
literally inventing the internet!

For many people, this is where interest in the history of RFCs goes from
"that sounds boring" to "that sounds amazing".

Anyway, I only suggest a brief expansion on the sentence in the
introduction about "the distribution method change from postal mail to FTP
and email." (To her credit, Jake Feinler does address this topic
concretely, though still in passing, in RFC 2555.)

Thanks for reading/considering,
Darius Kazemi

P.S. The introduction to the above-mentioned blog series is here:
https://write.as/365-rfcs/365-ietf-rfcs-a-50th-anniversary-dive

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 06:48:25 +0100

Hiya,

On 25/07/2019 05:35, Darius Kazemi wrote:
> The introduction to the above-mentioned blog series is here:

That's pretty cool, thanks!

I happened to be re-reading RFC20 recently, and liked
your gloss on that. (I have not yet read your take on
others, sorry.)

I hope you finish up to 365, have fun with that, write
up a summary, and then head on to do the next 8000 of
'em:-)

Cheers,
S.

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 07:25:59 -0400

Darius,

Very nice blog!

I saw your recent post on the internet-history list, but you just mentioned
your blog in passing, and it was easy to miss as it wasn't the primary
topic. You might want to give that list more of an intro to your blog, I'm
sure that you'll find some very interested readers there.

Cheers,
Andy

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:36 AM Darius Kazemi <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-fiftyyears/) and the
> associated call for comment. I'd like to offer some commentary on it from
> what may be a unique position: I've spent 2019 to date reading and blogging
> about each RFC sequentially starting with RFC 1.
>
> P..S. The introduction to the above-mentioned blog series is here:
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>

---

From: Heather Flanagan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 08:40:32 -0400

> On Jul 25, 2019, at 00:35, Darius Kazemi <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I recently learned of the Fifty Years of RFCs draft (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-fiftyyears/) and the associated call for comment. I'd like to offer some commentary on it from what may be a unique position: I've spent 2019 to date reading and blogging about each RFC sequentially starting with RFC 1.
> 
> In other words, I've been running an RFC history project, and it's been pretty popular.
> 
> One blessing of this project is I get to talk on almost a daily basis with what I'd call your typical software developer or even your typical internet user about the RFC series and its history. And there is one piece of historical context around RFCs that nobody seems to understand, and this draft might be a good place to set the record straight.
> 
> Simply put: it would be nice to highlight that the original RFCs were coordinated using a physical mailing list of postal addresses and then distributed via post. That these were sometimes typewritten, and sometimes even handwritten (in the cases of RFCs 7 and 8). That there were people manually compiling these lists of addresses, making carbon copies (or similar), and mailing them out (as seen in early RFCs like RFC 24).
> 
> This may seem like a minor note, but I bring this up because I can't overstate how mind-blowing it is for people to realize that of COURSE these early inventors and experimenters had to use the postal service. They were literally inventing the internet!
> 
> For many people, this is where interest in the history of RFCs goes from "that sounds boring" to "that sounds amazing".
> 
> Anyway, I only suggest a brief expansion on the sentence in the introduction about "the distribution method change from postal mail to FTP and email." (To her credit, Jake Feinler does address this topic concretely, though still in passing, in RFC 2555.)
> 
> P..S. The introduction to the above-mentioned blog series is here: https://write.as/365-rfcs/365-ietf-rfcs-a-50th-anniversary-dive

Hi Darius,

First, your blog is fantastic! You are helping improve the RFC Series through the work.

Regarding your suggestion, excellent point. I will add that to the draft.

-Heather