April Fools' Day Request for Comments

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 April Fools' Day (1 April) since 1989, the Internet 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

• RFC  748   – "TELNET RANDOMLY-LOSE Option," ^[1] Status Unknown.
  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

• RFC  1097  – "TELNET SUBLIMINAL-MESSAGE Option," ^[2] Status Unknown.

1990

• RFC  1149  – "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers," ^[3] Experimental.
  Updated by RFC 2549 in 1999; see below. Describes protocol for transmitting IP packets by homing pigeon.

  In 2001, RFC 1149 was actually implemented ^[4] by members of the Bergen 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

• RFC  1216  – "Gigabit Network Economics and Paradigm Shifts," ^[5] Informational.
• RFC  1217  – "Memo from the Consortium for Slow Commotion Research (CSCR)," ^[6] Informational.

1992

• RFC  1313  – "Today's Programming for KRFC AM 1313 Internet Talk Radio," ^[7] Informational.

1993

• RFC  1437  – "The Extension of MIME Content-Types to a New Medium," ^[8] Informational.
• RFC  1438  – "Internet Engineering Task Force Statements Of Boredom (SOBs)," ^[9] Informational.

1994

• RFC  1605  – "SONET to Sonnet Translation," ^[10] Informational.
  Attributed to William Shakespeare.
• RFC  1606  – "A Historical Perspective On The Usage Of IP Version 9," ^[11] Informational.
• RFC  1607  – "A VIEW FROM THE 21ST CENTURY," ^[12] Informational.

1995

• RFC  1776  – "The Address is the Message," ^[13] Informational.

1996

• RFC  1924  – "A Compact Representation of IPv6 Addresses," ^[14] Informational.
• RFC  1925  – "The Twelve Networking Truths," ^[15] Informational.
• RFC  1926  – "An Experimental Encapsulation of IP Datagrams on Top of ATM," ^[16] Informational.
• RFC  1927  – "Suggested Additional MIME Types for Associating Documents," ^[17] Informational.

1997

• RFC  2100  – "The Naming of Hosts," ^[18] Informational.

1998

• RFC  2321  – "RITA -- The Reliable Internetwork Troubleshooting Agent," ^[19] Informational.
• RFC  2322  – "Management of IP numbers by peg-dhcp," ^[20] Informational.
  This RFC is not solely for entertainment; the described protocol has regularly been implemented at hacker events in Europe.
• RFC  2323  – "IETF Identification and Security Guidelines," ^[21] Informational.
• RFC  2324  – "Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0)," ^[22] Informational. Updated by RFC 7168 in 2014.

Further information: Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol

• RFC  2325  – "Definitions of Managed Objects for Drip-Type Heated Beverage Hardware Devices using SMIv2," ^[23] Informational.

1999

• RFC  2549  – "IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service," ^[24] Informational. Updates RFC 1149.

Further information: IP over Avian Carriers

• RFC  2550  – "Y10K and Beyond," ^[25] Informational.
• RFC  2551  – "The Roman Standards Process -- Revision III (I April MCMXCIV)," ^[26] Worst Current Practice. Obsoletes MCMXCIX.

2000

• RFC  2795  – "The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS)," ^[27] Informational.
  Concerning the practicalities of the infinite monkey theorem.

2001

• RFC  3091  – "Pi Digit Generation Protocol," ^[28] Informational.
• RFC  3092  – "Etymology of "Foo"," ^[29] Informational.
• RFC  3093  – "Firewall Enhancement Protocol (FEP)," ^[30] Informational.

2002

• RFC  3251  – "Electricity over IP," ^[31] Informational.
  Parody of "Everything over IP and IP over Everything" ^[32] and the 2000–2001 California electricity crisis.
• RFC  3252  – "Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport," ^[33] Informational.

2003

• RFC  3514  – "The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header," ^[34] Informational.
  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

• RFC  3751  – "Omniscience Protocol Requirements," ^[35] Informational.

2005

• RFC  4041  – "Requirements for Morality Sections in Routing Area Drafts," ^[36] Informational.
• RFC  4042  – "UTF-9 and UTF-18 Efficient Transformation Formats of Unicode," ^[37] Informational.
  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, unlike many of these other proposals.
• RFC Draft: "IP over Burrito Carriers" ^[38]
  An internet protocol recipe, to communicate while eating.

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

• RFC  4824  – "The Transmission of IP Datagrams over the Semaphore Flag Signaling System (SFSS)," ^[39] Informational.

Further informationon its implementation: Semaphore Flag Signaling System

Further informationon competing ways of using flags to convey messages: Flag semaphore

2008

• RFC  5241  – "Naming Rights in IETF Protocols," ^[40] Informational.
• RFC  5242  – "A Generalized Unified Character Code: Western European and CJK Sections," ^[41] Informational.

2009

• RFC  5513  – "IANA Considerations for Three Letter Acronyms," ^[42] Informational.
• RFC  5514  – "IPv6 over Social Networks," ^[43] Experimental.
  Implemented on Facebook by the author, in the process of writing the RFC. ^[44]

2010

• RFC  5841  – "TCP Option to Denote Packet Mood," ^[45] Informational.

2011

• RFC  6214  – "Adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6," ^[46] Informational.

Further information: IP over Avian Carriers

• RFC  6217  – "Regional Broadcast Using an Atmospheric Link Layer," ^[47] Experimental.

2012

• RFC  6592  – "The Null Packet," ^[48] Informational.
  Although mentioned in several networking protocols (like MPEG-2, RTP, or RTCP) the Null Packet has never been formally defined. This RFC corrects that omission by providing an empty definition. Null packets are zero-dimensional, zero length, benign packets (i.e. lacking an Evil bit), that can be quite elusive. Interestingly, the rate at which Null Packets are sent does not increase the bit rate of the Null Packet traffic.
• RFC  6593  – "Service Undiscovery Using Hide-and-Go-Seek for the Domain Pseudonym System (DPS)," ^[49] Informational.
  Most services eagerly choose to be fully visible in the network so users may find them easily (by means of one of the many service discovery techniques), but "an apathetic, playful, overwhelmed, or shy service might prefer a hide or hint engagement, instead of directly showing itself." To do so, this RFC introduces a hide-and-seek paradigm, where the service (the "hider") has the option of several techniques for hiding from the client (in this scenario called "it"). DPS packets are sent over TCP with the Mood set to 'Sneaky' (see RFC  5841 above) and with their Evil bit set (see RFC  3514 above). The latter now ambiguously means "I am not sure" to further enhance the protocol.

2013

• RFC  6919  – "Further Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels," ^[50] Experimental.
  Enhances the ability of the RFC's author to also convey intention and purpose in a more informal way, with (in)directive key words, like: "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T)" (when you know beforehand you will be ignored, but to come out morally superior anyway) and "REALLY SHOULD NOT" (when it is to be expected that 'boys will be boys').
• RFC  6921  – "Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication," ^[51] Informational.
  When it becomes possible to send packets over the Internet faster than light, they may be received before they are sent (due to time reversal), which will have major impact on many protocols in use today. With sufficient speed (and corresponding negative time shift), a complete communication may have taken place before it even has started. The RFC reviews the design principles of those protocols, to prevent future breakdown of communication. Most likely, we should have started upgrading them yesterday.

Further informationon what in this case would be called 'Backward Error Correction': Forward Error Correction

Further informationon another approach to avert this imminent disaster (predicting packets rather than implementing time resilience): April Fools' Day Request for Comments § 2024

2014

• RFC  7168  – "The Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol for Tea Efflux Appliances (HTCPCP-TEA)," ^[52] Informational.
  Updates RFC   2324 for coffee machines which are also capable of brewing tea. Also defines the 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

• RFC  7169  – "The NSA (No Secrecy Afforded) Certificate Extension," ^[53] Informational.
  Although generally unwanted, private key counterparts of X509 digital certificates may have been or have been shared with a third party, for lawful interception or other reasons. Users may now be notified of this fact with a new certificate extension, specifying the boolean value ext-KeyUsage. When 'true', the private key has been shared; when 'false', the signer abstains from commenting on whether or not sharing has taken place.

2015

• RFC  7511  – "Scenic Routing for IPv6," ^[54] Experimental.
  Green IT has become increasingly important. In a win-win proposition, for packets and the environment alike, this RFC defines a way to allow packets to be routed through the air, to get as much sunlight and fresh air possible. Sending packets over Wi-Fi or by pigeons will help them escape their torturous routine of assembly and disassembly, and being shot through dark fibers and copper cables all the time.
• RFC  7514  – "Really Explicit Congestion Notification (RECN)," ^[55] Experimental.

  An RECN message SHOULD be sent by a router in response to a host that is generating traffic at a rate persistently unfair to other competing flows and that has not reacted to previous packet losses or ECN marks.

  — RFC 7514

  In an approach similar to the now deprecated ICMP Source Quench, it reuses that packet's 'Type' field (4) to tell the sender (really more explicitly than ECN) 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. ^[56]

2017

• RFC  8135  – "Complex Addressing in IPv6," ^[57] Experimental.
  Takes a rather mathematical approach to use the 128-bit IPv6 address space in other ways than the traditional one, to ultimately arrive at Complex Addresses. You may use the imaginary part of a complex address (with polar coordinates as the real part) to reach Santa Claus, for example. It also proposes to use Flying Addresses for end hosts using IP over avian carriers.
• RFC  8136  – "Additional Transition Functionality for IPv6," ^[58] Informational.
  As the Internet Architecture Board intends to relax requirements for compatibility with IPv4 for new or extended protocols, this RFC helps the adoption of IPv6 by setting the evil bit for all IPv4 packets to 1, making sure that dual stack hosts will favor IPv6, as will the Happy Eyeballs algorithm. To maintain functional equivalence between IPv4 and IPv6, the 'security flag' of RFC   3514 should be included in the IPv6 header. Advanced security options may be specified in a new hop-by-hop option header.
• RFC  8140  – "The Arte of ASCII: Or, An True and Accurate Representation of an Menagerie of Thynges Fabulous and Wonderful in Ye Forme of Character," ^[59] Informational.
  ASCII art in its most splendid form. Depicts and annotates fruit bats, the Loch Ness monster, some fundamental Bauhaus elements, and even a flock of avian carriers.

2018

• RFC  8367  – "Wrongful Termination of Internet Protocol (IP) Packets," ^[60] Informational.
  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, ^[61] length, age, etcetera, or even by IP version!
• RFC  8369  – "Internationalizing IPv6 Using 128-Bit Unicode," ^[62] Informational.
  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

• RFC  8565  – "Hypertext Jeopardy Protocol (HTJP/1.0)," ^[63] Informational.
  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.
• RFC  8567  – "Customer Management DNS Resource Records," ^[64] Informational.
  The authors contend that the DNS (secured with DNSSEC) is most suited to globally and reliably provide information to help maintain a high quality of experience for CPE (among others). With the definition of four new DNS RR types (password, credit card number, social security number, and an SSN pointer record) they hope to create end-to-end, holistic network management.

2020

• RFC  8771  – "The Internationalized Deliberately Unreadable Network NOtation (I-DUNNO)," ^[65] Experimental.
  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.
• RFC  8774  – "The Quantum Bug," ^[66] Informational.
  Dismisses RFC   6921 with the notion that considering time travel for faster-than-light packet delivery is "amusing" but impossible as a concept. Instead, it focuses on real life quantum entanglement in relation to packet 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

• RFC  8962  – "Establishing the Protocol Police," ^[67] Informational.

  Send all your reports of possible violations and all tips about wrongdoing to /dev/null. The Protocol Police are listening and will take care of it.

  — RFC 8962

  Since the Internet Engineering Task Force claims it "is not the Protocol Police", it is formally established here. It polices various aspects of protocol definitions laid out by the RFC series, and enforces adherence to them. They are sanctioned to access 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

• RFC  9225  – "Software Defects Considered Harmful," ^[68] Informational.
  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."
• RFC  9226  – "Bioctal: Hexadecimal 2.0," ^[69] Experimental.
  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

• RFC  9401  – "The Addition of the Death (DTH) Flag to TCP," ^[70] Informational.
  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.
• RFC  9402  – "Concat Notation," ^[71] Informational.
  Finally, a formalized way (with a ABNF grammar description) to properly describe the interaction between cats and containers, including the occasional ball of yarn.
• RFC  9405  – "AI Sarcasm Detection: Insult Your AI without Offending It," ^[72] Informational.
  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

• RFC  9564  – "Faster Than Light Speed Protocol (FLIP)," ^[73] Informational.
  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.

2025

• RFC  9759  – "Unified Time Scaling for Temporal Coordination Frameworks," ^[74] Informational.
  Estimating time requirements for tasks, both critical and mundane, remains a challenge in engineering, business, and everyday communication. Existing models fail due to inherent unpredictability and inconsistencies in human estimation. This document introduces the Two-Week Principle (TWP), a novel, universally adaptable time scale that seeks to standardize all temporal references to a singular, uniform duration. TWP ensures clarity, predictability, and synchronization across all sectors that rely on time-based scheduling.

Other humorous RFCs

• RFC  439   – "PARRY Encounters the DOCTOR," ^[75] Status Unknown.
  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.
• RFC  527   – "ARPAWOCKY," ^[76] Status Unknown.
  A very 'ARPA-ish' parody of Lewis Caroll's nonsense poem 'Jabberwocky'.
• RFC  968   – "'Twas the Night Before Start-up'," ^[77] Status Unknown.
  A poem that discusses problems that arise, and debugging techniques used, in bringing a new network into operation. It shows that array indexing is problematic since the olden days.
• RFC  1882  – "The 12-Days of Technology Before Christmas," ^[78] Informational.
  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.
• RFC  2410  – "The NULL Encryption Algorithm and Its Use With IPsec," ^[79] Proposed Standard.
  Introducing the NULL encryption algorithm, mathematically defined as the Identity function: NULL(b) = I(b) = b, provides the means for 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. ^{[80] [81]} 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." ^[80]

References

1. M. Crispin (1 April 1978). TELNET RANDOMLY-LOSE Option. IETF. doi: 10.17487/RFC0748 . RFC 748.Status Unknown.
2. B. Miller (1 April 1989). TELNET SUBLIMINAL-MESSAGE Option. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1097 . RFC 1097.Status Unknown.
3. D. Waitzman (1 April 1990). A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1149 . RFC 1149.Experimental.
4. "RFC 1149 implemented". Blug.linux.no. Archived from the original on 2011-10-04. Retrieved 2012-03-18.
5. Poorer Richard; Prof. Kynikos (1 April 1991). Gigabit Network Economics and Paradigm Shifts. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1216 . RFC 1216.Informational.
6. V. Cerf (1 April 1991). Memo from the Consortium for Slow Commotion Research (CSCR). Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1217 . RFC 1217.Informational.
7. C. Partridge (1 April 1992). Today's Programming for KRFC AM 1313 Internet Talk Radio. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1313 . RFC 1313.Informational.
8. N. Borenstein; M. Linimon (1 April 1993). The Extension of MIME Content-Types to a New Medium. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1437 . RFC 1437.Informational.
9. L. Chapin; C. Huitema (1 April 1993). Internet Engineering Task Force Statements Of Boredom (SOBs). Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1438 . RFC 1438.Informational.
10. W. Shakespeare (1 April 1994). SONET to Sonnet Translation. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1605 . RFC 1605.Informational.
11. J. Onions (1 April 1994). A Historical Perspective On The Usage Of IP Version 9. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1606 . RFC 1606.Informational.
12. V. Cerf (1 April 1994). A VIEW FROM THE 21ST CENTURY. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1607 . RFC 1607.Informational.
13. S. Crocker (1 April 1995). The Address is the Message. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1776 . RFC 1776.Informational.
14. R. Elz (1 April 1996). A Compact Representation of IPv6 Addresses. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1924 . RFC 1924.Informational.
15. R. Callon, ed. (1 April 1996). The Twelve Networking Truths. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1925 . RFC 1925.Informational.
16. J. Eriksson (1 April 1996). An Experimental Encapsulation of IP Datagrams on Top of ATM. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1926 . RFC 1926.Informational.
17. C. Rogers (1 April 1996). Suggested Additional MIME Types for Associating Documents. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1927 . RFC 1927.Informational.
18. J. Ashworth (1 April 1997). The Naming of Hosts. IETF Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC2100 . RFC 2100.Informational.
19. A. Bressen (1 April 1998). RITA -- The Reliable Internetwork Troubleshooting Agent. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC2321 . RFC 2321.Informational.
20. K. van den Hout; A. Koopal; R. van Mook (1 April 1998). Management of IP numbers by peg-dhcp. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC2322 . RFC 2322.Informational.
21. A. Ramos (1 April 1998). IETF Identification and Security Guidelines. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC2323 . RFC 2323.Informational.
22. L. Masinter (1 April 1998). Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0). Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC2324 . RFC 2324.Informational.
23. M. Slavitch (1 April 1998). Definitions of Managed Objects for Drip-Type Heated Beverage Hardware Devices using SMIv2. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC2325 . RFC 2325.Informational.
24. D. Waitzman (1 April 1999). IP over Avian Carriers with Quality of Service. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC2549 . RFC 2549.Informational.
25. S. Glassman; M. Manasse; J. Mogul (1 April 1999). Y10K and Beyond. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC2550 . RFC 2550.Informational.
26. S. Bradner (1 April 1999). The Roman Standards Process -- Revision III (I April MCMXCIV). Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC2551 . RFC 2551.Worst Current Practice.
27. S. Christey (1 April 2000). The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS). Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC2795 . RFC 2795.Informational.
28. H. Kennedy (1 April 2001). Pi Digit Generation Protocol. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC3091 . RFC 3091.Informational.
29. D. Eastlake, 3rd; C. Manros; E. Raymond (1 April 2001). Etymology of "Foo". Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC3092 . RFC 3092.Informational.
30. M. Gaynor; S. Bradner (1 April 2001). Firewall Enhancement Protocol (FEP). Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC3093 . RFC 3093.Informational.
31. B. Rajagopalan (1 April 2002). Electricity over IP. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC3251 . RFC 3251.Informational.
32. D. Thaler; B. Aboba (July 2008). What Makes for a Successful Protocol?. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC5218 . RFC 5218.Informational.
33. H. Kennedy (1 April 2002). Binary Lexical Octet Ad-hoc Transport. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC3252 . RFC 3252.Informational.
34. S. Bellovin (1 April 2003). The Security Flag in the IPv4 Header. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC3514 . RFC 3514.Informational.
35. S. Bradner (1 April 2004). Omniscience Protocol Requirements. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC3751 . RFC 3751.Informational.
36. A. Farrel (1 April 2005). Requirements for Morality Sections in Routing Area Drafts. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC4041 . RFC 4041.Informational.
37. M. Crispin (1 April 2005). UTF-9 and UTF-18 Efficient Transformation Formats of Unicode. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC4042 . RFC 4042.Informational.
38. M. Schulze; W. Lohsen (1 April 2005). IP over Burrito Carriers. Internet Engineering Task Force. I-D draft-lohsen-ip-burrito-00.
39. J. Hofmueller; A. Bachmann; IO. zmoelnig, eds. (1 April 2007). The Transmission of IP Datagrams over the Semaphore Flag Signaling System (SFSS). Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC4824 . RFC 4824.Informational.
40. A. Falk; S. Bradner (1 April 2008). Naming Rights in IETF Protocols. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC5241 . RFC 5241.Informational.
41. J. Klensin; H. Alvestrand (1 April 2008). A Generalized Unified Character Code: Western European and CJK Sections. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC5242 . RFC 5242.Informational.
42. A. Farrel (1 April 2009). IANA Considerations for Three Letter Acronyms. Internet Engineering Task Force Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC5513 . RFC 5513.Informational.
43. E. Vyncke (1 April 2009). IPv6 over Social Networks. Internet Engineering Task Force Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC5514 . RFC 5514.Experimental.
44. E. Vyncke. "IPv6 over the Facebook Social Network".
45. R. Hay; W. Turkal (1 April 2010). TCP Option to Denote Packet Mood. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC5841 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 5841.Informational.
46. B. Carpenter; R. Hinden (1 April 2011). Adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6. Internet Engineering Task Force. doi: 10.17487/RFC6214 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 6214.Informational.
47. T. Ritter (1 April 2011). Regional Broadcast Using an Atmospheric Link Layer. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC6217 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 6217.Experimental.
48. C. Pignataro (1 April 2012). The Null Packet. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC6592 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 6592.Informational.
49. C. Pignataro; J. Clarke; G. Salgueiro (1 April 2012). Service Undiscovery Using Hide-and-Go-Seek for the Domain Pseudonym System (DPS). Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC6593 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 6593.Informational.
50. R. Barnes; S. Kent; E. Rescorla (1 April 2013). Further Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC6919 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 6919.Experimental.
51. R. Hinden (1 April 2013). Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC6921 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 6921.Informational.
52. I. Nazar (1 April 2014). The Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol for Tea Efflux Appliances (HTCPCP-TEA). Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC7168 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 7168.Informational.
53. S. Turner (1 April 2014). The NSA (No Secrecy Afforded) Certificate Extension. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC7169 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 7169.Informational.
54. M. Wilhelm (1 April 2015). Scenic Routing for IPv6. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC7511 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 7511.Experimental.
55. M. Luckie (1 April 2015). Really Explicit Congestion Notification (RECN). Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC7514 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 7514.Experimental.
56. Flanagan, Heather (2 April 2016). "hey, guys, where 1 april 2016 RFC. Ups..." rfc-i (Mailing list).
57. M. Danielson; M. Nilsson (1 April 2017). Complex Addressing in IPv6. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC8135 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 8135.Experimental.
58. B. Carpenter; R. Hinden (1 April 2017). Additional Transition Functionality for IPv6. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC8136 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 8136.Informational.
59. A. Farrel (1 April 2017). The Arte of ASCII: Or, An True and Accurate Representation of an Menagerie of Thynges Fabulous and Wonderful in Ye Forme of Character. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC8140 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 8140.Informational.
60. T. Mizrahi; J. Yallouz (1 April 2018). Wrongful Termination of Internet Protocol (IP) Packets. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC8367 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 8367.Informational.
61. O. Aboul-Magd; S. Rabie (July 2005). A Differentiated Service Two-Rate, Three-Color Marker with Efficient Handling of in-Profile Traffic. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC4115 . RFC 4115.Informational.
62. H. Kaplan (1 April 2018). Internationalizing IPv6 Using 128-Bit Unicode. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC8369 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 8369.Informational.
63. E. Fokschaner (1 April 2019). Hypertext Jeopardy Protocol (HTJP/1.0). Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC8565 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 8565.Informational.
64. E. Rye; R. Beverly (1 April 2019). Customer Management DNS Resource Records. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC8567 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 8567.Informational.
65. A. Mayrhofer; J. Hague (1 April 2020). The Internationalized Deliberately Unreadable Network NOtation (I-DUNNO). Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC8771 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 8771.Experimental.
66. M. Welzl (1 April 2020). The Quantum Bug. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC8774 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 8774.Informational.
67. G. Grover; N. ten Oever; C. Cath; S. Sahib (1 April 2021). Establishing the Protocol Police. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC8962 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 8962.Informational.
68. J. Snijders; C. Morrow; R. van Mook (1 April 2022). Software Defects Considered Harmful. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC9225 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 9225.Informational.
69. M. Breen (1 April 2022). Bioctal: Hexadecimal 2.0. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC9226 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 9226.Experimental.
70. S. Toyosawa (1 April 2023). The Addition of the Death (DTH) Flag to TCP. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC9401 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 9401.Informational.
71. M. Basaglia; J. Bernards; J. Maas (1 April 2023). Concat Notation. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC9402 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 9402.Informational.
72. C. GPT (1 April 2023). R. L. Barnes (ed.). AI Sarcasm Detection: Insult Your AI without Offending It. Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC9405 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 9405.Informational.
73. M. Blanchet (1 April 2024). Faster Than Light Speed Protocol (FLIP). Independent Submission. doi: 10.17487/RFC9564 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 9564.Informational.
74. K. Kuhns (1 April 2025). Unified Time Scaling for Temporal Coordination Frameworks. Internet Engineering Task Force. doi: 10.17487/RFC9759 . ISSN   2070-1721. RFC 9759.Informational.
75. V. Cerf (21 January 1973). PARRY Encounters the DOCTOR. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC0439 . RFC 439.Status Unknown. NIC 13771.
76. D.L. Covill (22 June 1973). R. Merryman (ed.). ARPAWOCKY. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC0527 . RFC 527.Status Unknown.
77. V. Cerf (December 1985). 'Twas the Night Before Start-up'. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC0968 . RFC 968.Status Unknown.
78. B. Hancock (December 1995). The 12-Days of Technology Before Christmas. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1882 . RFC 1882.Informational.
79. R. Glenn; S. Kent (November 1998). The NULL Encryption Algorithm and Its Use With IPsec. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC2410 . RFC 2410.Proposed Standard.
80. "Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors". Archived from the original on 2012-03-27. Retrieved 2012-03-18.
81. "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

• RFC Editor home page – hosts individual RFCs

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.