Request For Comments

Also found in: Acronyms, Wikipedia.

Request For Comments

(RFC) One of a series, begun in 1969, of numbered Internet informational documents and standards widely followed by commercial software and freeware in the Internet and Unix communities. Few RFCs are standards but all Internet standards are recorded in RFCs. Perhaps the single most influential RFC has been RFC 822, the Internet electronic mail format standard.

The RFCs are unusual in that they are floated by technical experts acting on their own initiative and reviewed by the Internet at large, rather than formally promulgated through an institution such as ANSI. For this reason, they remain known as RFCs even once adopted as standards.

The RFC tradition of pragmatic, experience-driven, after-the-fact standard writing done by individuals or small working groups has important advantages over the more formal, committee-driven process typical of ANSI or ISO.

Emblematic of some of these advantages is the existence of a flourishing tradition of "joke" RFCs; usually at least one a year is published, usually on April 1st. Well-known joke RFCs have included 527 ("ARPAWOCKY", R. Merryman, UCSD; 22 June 1973), 748 ("Telnet Randomly-Lose Option", Mark R. Crispin; 1 April 1978), and 1149 ("A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers", D. Waitzman, BBN STC; 1 April 1990). The first was a Lewis Carroll pastiche; the second a parody of the TCP/IP documentation style, and the third a deadpan skewering of standards-document legalese, describing protocols for transmitting Internet data packets by carrier pigeon.

The RFCs are most remarkable for how well they work - they manage to have neither the ambiguities that are usually rife in informal specifications, nor the committee-perpetrated misfeatures that often haunt formal standards, and they define a network that has grown to truly worldwide proportions. W3. JANET UK FTP. Imperial College, UK FTP. Nexor UK. Ohio State U.

See also For Your Information, STD.
References in periodicals archive ?
The publication of the notice and request for comments in a forthcoming issue of the Federal Register will mark the beginning of a three-year joint effort by the agencies to obtain suggestions from the industry and public on more-streamlined and less-burdensome ways to regulate.
I am writing in response to your September 21, 2004, request for comments on legislative proposals the Department of Taxation is considering for the General Assembly's 2005 session.
On August 8, 1999, Tax Executives Institute submitted the following comments regarding the Internal Revenue Service's request for comments on the agency's draft Fast Track Mediation Procedure.
On August 25, 1998, Tax Executives Institute submitted the following comments to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in response to his request for comments on a proposed revision of the Internal Revenue Service's mission statement (as required under the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998).
This letter responds to the Internal Revenue Service's recent request for comments on the collection of information under the proposed section 952 and 964 regulations, relating to the computation of the earnings and profits of foreign corporations.
Regrettably, multitudinous year-end business obligations (as well as the previous scheduling of vacations by members of the appropriate Institute committees) make it impossible for TEI to respond in detail to your request for comments before the end of the year.
On the administrative side, TEI responded to an IRS request for comments on the efficacy of a proposal to exclude dormant foreign subsidiaries from certain reporting requirements.

Full browser ?