April Fools' Day Request for Comments

Last updated

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.

Contents

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

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 [4] by members of the Bergen Linux User Group.
See also RFC 6214, as noted below. Describes the adaptation of RFC 1149 for IPv6.

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.

1999

2000

Concerning the practicalities of the infinite monkey theorem.

2001

2002

Parody of "Everything over IP and IP over Everything" [32] 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.

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.
A delicious 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

2008

2009

Implemented on Facebook by the author, in the process of writing the RFC. [44]

2010

2011

2012

2013

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').
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.

2014

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.
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

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 pidgeons will help them escape their torturous routine of assembly and disassembly, and being shot through dark fibers and copper cables all the time.
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

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.
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.
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

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!
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 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

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 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

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

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 'ARPA-ish' parody of Lewis Caroll's nonsense poem 'Jabberwocky'.
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.
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 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. [79] [80] 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." [79]

Related Research Articles

An Internet Protocol address is a numerical label such as 192.0.2.1 that is assigned to a device connected to a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. IP addresses serve two main functions: network interface identification, and location addressing.

The Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) is a supporting protocol in the Internet protocol suite. It is used by network devices, including routers, to send error messages and operational information indicating success or failure when communicating with another IP address. For example, an error is indicated when a requested service is not available or that a host or router could not be reached. ICMP differs from transport protocols such as TCP and UDP in that it is not typically used to exchange data between systems, nor is it regularly employed by end-user network applications.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IPv4</span> Fourth version of the Internet Protocol

Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) is the first version of the Internet Protocol (IP) as a standalone specification. It is one of the core protocols of standards-based internetworking methods in the Internet and other packet-switched networks. IPv4 was the first version deployed for production on SATNET in 1982 and on the ARPANET in January 1983. It is still used to route most Internet traffic today, even with the ongoing deployment of Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6), its successor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IPv6</span> Version 6 of the Internet Protocol

Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) is the most recent version of the Internet Protocol (IP), the communications protocol that provides an identification and location system for computers on networks and routes traffic across the Internet. IPv6 was developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to deal with the long-anticipated problem of IPv4 address exhaustion, and was intended to replace IPv4. In December 1998, IPv6 became a Draft Standard for the IETF, which subsequently ratified it as an Internet Standard on 14 July 2017.

The Internet Protocol (IP) is the network layer communications protocol in the Internet protocol suite for relaying datagrams across network boundaries. Its routing function enables internetworking, and essentially establishes the Internet.

In computer networking, the maximum transmission unit (MTU) is the size of the largest protocol data unit (PDU) that can be communicated in a single network layer transaction. The MTU relates to, but is not identical to the maximum frame size that can be transported on the data link layer, e.g., Ethernet frame.

Intermediate System to Intermediate System is a routing protocol designed to move information efficiently within a computer network, a group of physically connected computers or similar devices. It accomplishes this by determining the best route for data through a packet switching network.

A multicast address is a logical identifier for a group of hosts in a computer network that are available to process datagrams or frames intended to be multicast for a designated network service. Multicast addressing can be used in the link layer, such as Ethernet multicast, and at the internet layer for Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4) or Version 6 (IPv6) multicast.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet Stream Protocol</span> Family of experimental protocols

The Internet Stream Protocol (ST) is a family of experimental protocols first defined in Internet Experiment Note IEN-119 in 1979, and later substantially revised in RFC 1190 (ST-II) and RFC 1819 (ST2+). The protocol uses the version number 5 in the version field of the Internet Protocol header, but was never known as IPv5. The successor to IPv4 was thus named IPv6 to eliminate any possible confusion about the actual protocol in use.

The Neighbor Discovery Protocol (NDP), or simply Neighbor Discovery (ND), is a protocol of the Internet protocol suite used with Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6). It operates at the internet layer of the Internet model, and is responsible for gathering various information required for network communication, including the configuration of local connections and the domain name servers and gateways.

In the Internet addressing architecture, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) have reserved various Internet Protocol (IP) addresses for special purposes.

Path MTU Discovery (PMTUD) is a standardized technique in computer networking for determining the maximum transmission unit (MTU) size on the network path between two Internet Protocol (IP) hosts, usually with the goal of avoiding IP fragmentation. PMTUD was originally intended for routers in Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPv4). However, all modern operating systems use it on endpoints. In IPv6, this function has been explicitly delegated to the end points of a communications session. As an extension to the standard path MTU discovery, a technique called Packetization Layer Path MTU Discovery works without support from ICMP.

The internet layer is a group of internetworking methods, protocols, and specifications in the Internet protocol suite that are used to transport network packets from the originating host across network boundaries; if necessary, to the destination host specified by an IP address. The internet layer derives its name from its function facilitating internetworking, which is the concept of connecting multiple networks with each other through gateways.

An IPv6 transition mechanism is a technology that facilitates the transitioning of the Internet from the Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) infrastructure in use since 1983 to the successor addressing and routing system of Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6). As IPv4 and IPv6 networks are not directly interoperable, transition technologies are designed to permit hosts on either network type to communicate with any other host.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IPv6 address</span> Label to identify a network interface of a computer or other network node

An Internet Protocol version 6 address is a numeric label that is used to identify and locate a network interface of a computer or a network node participating in a computer network using IPv6. IP addresses are included in the packet header to indicate the source and the destination of each packet. The IP address of the destination is used to make decisions about routing IP packets to other networks.

An IPv6 packet is the smallest message entity exchanged using Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6). Packets consist of control information for addressing and routing and a payload of user data. The control information in IPv6 packets is subdivided into a mandatory fixed header and optional extension headers. The payload of an IPv6 packet is typically a datagram or segment of the higher-level transport layer protocol, but may be data for an internet layer or link layer instead.

NAT64 is an IPv6 transition mechanism that facilitates communication between IPv6 and IPv4 hosts by using a form of network address translation (NAT). The NAT64 gateway is a translator between IPv4 and IPv6 protocols, for which function it needs at least one IPv4 address and an IPv6 network segment comprising a 32-bit address space. The "well-known prefix" reserved for this service is 64:ff9b::/96.

IPv4 Residual Deployment (4rd) is an IPv6 transition mechanism for Internet service providers for deployment of Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6), while maintaining IPv4 service to customers. The protocol and sample applications are specified in RFC 7600.

Rémi Després is a French engineer and entrepreneur known for his contributions on data networking.

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. 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. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC5513 . RFC 5513.Informational.
  43. ↑ E. Vyncke (1 April 2009). IPv6 over Social Networks. 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. ↑ V. Cerf (21 January 1973). PARRY Encounters the DOCTOR. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC0439 . RFC 439.Status Unknown. NIC 13771.
  75. ↑ D.L. Covill (22 June 1973). R. Merryman (ed.). ARPAWOCKY. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC0527 . RFC 527.Status Unknown.
  76. ↑ V. Cerf (December 1985). 'Twas the Night Before Start-up'. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC0968 . RFC 968.Status Unknown.
  77. ↑ B. Hancock (December 1995). The 12-Days of Technology Before Christmas. Network Working Group. doi: 10.17487/RFC1882 . RFC 1882.Informational.
  78. ↑ 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.
  79. 1 2 "Instructions to Request for Comments (RFC) Authors". Archived from the original on 2012-03-27. Retrieved 2012-03-18.
  80. ↑ "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

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.