Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RFC On New Internet Routing Protocol

Posted by Zonk on from the making-folks-safe-one-packet-at-a-time dept.

PoesRaven writes "An A. Farrel has put out a Request For Comments paper on a new routing protocol with profound implications for the internet, the usability of the TCP/IP protocol, and the security of the net's youngest users. From the RFC: "It has often been the case that morality has not been given proper consideration in the design and specification of protocols produced within the Routing Area. This has led to a decline in the moral values within the Internet and attempts to retrofit a suitable moral code to implemented and deployed protocols has been shown to be sub-optimal." Interesting, but seems to raise some serious privacy questions.

5 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Hey! I read the article! by halivar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just kidding. April Fool's!

  2. April fools by jimbo3123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The april fools stories are just getting worse and worse.

    --
    There should be a moderation category "Dumbest Comment EVER"
    1. Re:April fools by Proaxiom · · Score: 4, Informative
      Can't blame the editors for this one. It's one of the annual April Fools RFC, like RFC 1149 - A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers, RFC 2324 Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol, and RFC 2795 - The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite.

      Slashdot would be remiss if they didn't put up the link.

      I suspect RFC 4042 will make a cameo on the Slashdot homepage today as well.

    2. Re:April fools by lilo_booter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The april fools stories are just getting worse and worse.

      Actually, if you read the article, you might find this one quite funny... has some great quotes in it, like:

      The key words "SHALT", "SHALT NOT", "SMITE", and "PILLAR OF SALT" in this document are to be interpreted as expected.

      and:

      If the Morality Considerations section is present, it MUST contain at least the following subsections. The content of these subsections is surely self-evident to any right-thinking person. Further guidance can be obtained from your moral guardian, your household gods, or from any member of the IMM (Internet Moral Majority).

      Oh well, mebbe I'm easily amused...

  3. RTFRFC by OpenYourEyes · · Score: 5, Informative

    You should read more carefully. The RFC does not specify a new protocol, it specifies a new section in RFC documentation, much like the "security implication" sections that started appearing a few years back.

    If you're going to try and be funny - at least be correct. That said, your rush to condemn it certainly puts your moral standing in question - eh?