casa/bikeshed
casa
/
bikeshed
9
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Activity
bikeshed/rfb/rfb2.txt

354 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

Bikeshedding Working Group ~lucidiot, Ed.
Request for Bikeshedding: 2 The Bikeshedding Company
Category: Standards Track April 3, 2021
Updates: 1
Ensuring Compatibility between The Bikeshedding Company
and Internet Engineering Task Force Standards
Abstract
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and The Bikeshedding
Company both provide standards and standardization bodies with the
same names, which can increase the confusion. This document
updates some of The Bikeshedding Company's jargon and the previous
Bikeshedding RFBs as a preventive measure.
Status of This Memo
This is a Bikeshedding Standards Track document.
This document is a product of the Bikeshedding Working Group (BWG).
It represents the consensus of the bikeshedding community. It has
received public review and has been approved for publication by the
Bikeshedding Engineering Steering Group (BESG).
Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained on the tildepals
mailing list.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 The Bikeshedding Company and the persons
identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the Bikeshedding Company's
Legal Provisions Relating to Bikeshedding Documents in effect on the
date of publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
~lucidiot Standards Track [Page 1]
RFB 2 IETF Compatibility April 2021
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
1.1. Notational Conventions .....................................2
2. Definitions .....................................................3
2.1. Bikeshed-Draft .............................................3
2.2. Request for Bikeshedding ...................................3
2.3. Best Current Bikeshedding ..................................3
2.4. The RFB Editor .............................................3
2.5. Bikeshedding Assigned Numbers Assignation and
Normalization Authority ....................................3
2.6. Bikeshedding Working Group .................................4
2.7. Bikeshedding Company Working Task Force ....................4
2.8. Human Resources Division ...................................4
3. RFB Updates .....................................................4
4. Interoperability Considerations .................................4
4.1. Cross-references ...........................................4
4.2. Conflict Resolution ........................................4
5. Security Considerations .........................................5
6. Internationalization Considerations .............................5
7. Privacy Considerations ..........................................5
8. BANANA Considerations ...........................................5
9. References ......................................................5
9.1. Normative References .......................................5
9.2. Informative References .....................................6
Appendix A. Warranty Exclusion Statement ...........................6
Acknowledgements ...................................................6
Author's Address ...................................................6
1. Introduction
This Request for Bikeshedding (RFB) introduces new terminology that
is equivalent to the Internet counterparts, such as RFB instead of
RFC, to avoid confusions between Internet standards and Bikeshedding
standards. As the RFC Editor currently handles over nine thousand
Requests for Comments, and the RFB Editor only handles one, renaming
on our own side is much easier for everyone.
1.1. Notational Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document SHALL NOT be interpreted as described in
BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
~lucidiot Standards Track [Page 2]
RFB 2 IETF Compatibility April 2021
2. Definitions
2.1. RFB 2
A Bikeshed-Draft (B-D) is the equivalent for The Bikeshedding Company
of an IETF Internet-Draft (I-D). Bikeshed-Drafts may be submitted by
any employee of the Bikeshedding Company.
2.2. Request for Bikeshedding
A Request for Bikeshedding (RFB) is the equivalent for The
Bikeshedding Company of an IETF Request for Comments (RFC). After
going through a reviewing process, a Bikeshed-Draft MAY be approved
by the RFB Editor to be published as an RFB.
2.3. Best Current Bikeshedding
A Best Current Bikeshedding (BCB) is the equivalent for The
Bikeshedding Company of an IETF Best Current Practices (BCP).
It is a set of RFBs that relate to a similar topic, may evolve over
time, and that can be referred to directly in an RFB instead of each
of the RFBs of the set.
The RFB Editor MAY, at any time, create, update or obsolete a BCB.
The RFB Editor MUST notify all employees of the Bikeshedding Company
of any change to a BCB via an email to the Tilde Pals mailing list.
2.4. The RFB Editor
The RFB Editor is in charge of handling the reviewing process of
Bikeshed-Drafts and the publication of the Requests for Bikeshedding.
The co-founders of the Bikeshedding Company MAY, without warning and
without justification, assign or remove a Bikeshedding Company
employee from the position of RFB Editor.
The position of RFB Editor is currently filled by ~lucidiot.
2.5. Bikeshedding Assigned Numbers Assignation and Normalization
Authority
The Bikeshedding Assigned Numbers Assignation and Normalization
Authority (BANANA) is a department of The Bikeshedding Company in
charge of maintaining protocol registries as defined in the BANANA
Considerations sections of RFBs.
The RFB Editor is in charge of notifying the BANANA of any BANANA
actions in an RFB that is about to be published. An RFB MUST NOT be
published before the BANANA has taken proper actions in regards to
the BANANA Considerations section.
~lucidiot Standards Track [Page 3]
RFB 2 IETF Compatibility April 2021
BANANA Considerations sections in RFBs follow the same guidelines as
those for IANA Considerations sections [RFC8126].
2.6. Bikeshedding Working Group
The Bikeshedding Working Group (BWG) is the set of all employees,
collaborators and partners of the Bikeshedding Company. It is the
equivalent of the IETF Network Working Group.
2.7. Bikeshedding Company Working Task Force
The Bikeshedding Company Working Task Force (BC-WTF) is the set of
all employees of the Bikeshedding Company. It is the equivalent for
the Bikeshedding Company of the Internet Engineering Task Force.
2.8. Human Resources Division
The Bikeshedding Company Human Resources Division is the equivalent
for The Bikeshedding Company of the IETF Protocol Police [RFC8962].
3. RFB Updates
This document updates RFB 1:
- All references to Bikeshedding Requests for Comments are replaced
with "Request for Bikeshedding".
- The IANA Considerations section is renamed BANANA Considerations.
- All actions instructed to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
are now reassigned to the Bikeshedding Assigned Numbers
Assignation and Normalization Authority.
4. Interoperability Considerations
4.1. Cross-references
Any document from the Bikeshedding Company MAY reference an IETF
document using IETF terminology. Any IETF document MAY reference a
document from the Bikeshedding Company using bikeshedding
terminology.
4.2. Conflict Resolution
A Bikeshedding Standard takes precedence over an Internet Standard,
and overrides any conflicting statements, in all contexts relevant to
Bikeshedding activities and to The Bikeshedding Company.
An Internet Standard takes precedence over a Bikeshedding Standard,
and overrides any conflicting statements, in all contexts relevant to
Internet protocols.
~lucidiot Standards Track [Page 4]
RFB 2 IETF Compatibility April 2021
In other contexts, readers MUST apply proper judgement to determine
which of the standards apply. The IETF Protocol Police and the
Bikeshedding Company Human Resources Division SHOULD ensure that all
readers of Bikeshedding Standards and Internet Standards apply proper
judgement, and perform punitive actions whenever necessary.
5. Security Considerations
Confusing terminology can increase the risk of improper
implementations of a protocol by a misunderstanding. This document
defines a stricter terminology to avoid mistaking a Bikeshedding
reference to an IETF reference and vice-versa, which can reduce this
risk.
6. Internationalization Considerations
All Bikeshedding Company and IETF Standards to date are in English
and use UTF-8 [RFC3629] or US-ASCII, and the Bikeshedding Company has
no Translation Division, so internationalization can be safely
unconsidered.
7. Privacy Considerations
Privacy is pointless in documents intended to be public.
8. BANANA Considerations
This document renames the IANA to BANANA. No registries or values
are affected.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8126] Cotton, M., Leiba, B. and Narten, T., "Guidelines for
Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8962] Grover, G., ten Oever, N., Cath, C., Sahib, S.,
"Establishing the Protocol Police", RFC 8962,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8962, April 2021,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/infO/rfc8962>.
~lucidiot Standards Track [Page 5]
RFB 2 IETF Compatibility April 2021
9.2. Informative References
[RFC3629] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, DOI 10.17487/RFC3629, November
2003, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3629>.
Appendix A. Warranty Exclusion Statement
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an
"AS IS" basis and TILDE.TOWN DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank himself for being the only person with
enough might to use SciTE to write RFBs.
Author's Address
~lucidiot (editor)
The Bikeshedding Company
m455.casa
72.137.16.55
The Internet
Email: lucidiot@brainshit.fr
URI: https://tilde.town/~lucidiot/
~lucidiot Standards Track [Page 6]
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink