GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


rfc:rfc4041

Network Working Group A. Farrel Request for Comments: 4041 Old Dog Consulting Category: Informational 1 April 2005

     Requirements for Morality Sections in Routing Area Drafts

Status of This Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
 not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
 memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

Abstract

 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.
 This document specifies a requirement for all new Routing Area
 Internet-Drafts to include a "Morality Considerations" section, and
 gives guidance on what that section should contain.

1. Introduction

 It is well accepted by popular opinion and other reliable metrics
 that moral values are declining and that degeneracy is increasing.
 Young people are particularly at risk from the rising depravity in
 society and much of the blame can be squarely placed at the door of
 the Internet.  If you do not feel safe on the streets at night, what
 do you think it is like on the Information Superhighway?
 When new protocols or protocol extensions are developed within the
 Routing Area, it is often the case that not enough consideration is
 given to the impact of the protocol on the moral fiber of the
 Internet.  The result is that moral consequences are only understood
 once the protocols have been implemented, and sometimes not until
 after they have been deployed.

Farrel Informational [Page 1] RFC 4041 Routing Morality Section Requirements 1 April 2005

 The resultant attempts to restore appropriate behavior and purge the
 community of improper activities are not always easy or
 architecturally pleasant.  Further, it is possible that certain
 protocol designs make morality particularly hard to achieve.
 Recognising that moral issues are fundamental to the utility and
 success of protocols designed within the IETF, and that simply making
 a wishy-washy liberal-minded statement does not necessarily provide
 adequate guarantees of a correct and proper outcome for society, this
 document defines requirements for the inclusion of Morality
 Considerations sections in all Internet-Drafts produced within the
 Routing Area.  Meeting these requirements will ensure that proper
 consideration is given to moral issues at all stages of the protocol
 development process, from Requirements and Architecture, through
 Specification and Applicability.
 The remainder of this document describes the necessary subsections of
 the Morality Considerations sections, and gives guidance about what
 information should be contained in those subsections.

1.1. Conventions Used in This Document

 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
 The key words "SHALT", "SHALT NOT", "SMITE", and "PILLAR OF SALT" in
 this document are to be interpreted as expected.

2. Presence and Placement of Morality Considerations Sections

2.1. Null Morality Considerations Sections

 It may be the case that the authors of Internet-Drafts have no or few
 morals.  This does not relieve them of their duty to understand the
 consequences of their actions.
 The more likely an author is to say that a null Morality
 Considerations section is acceptable, the more pressure must be
 exerted on him by the Area and the appropriate Working Group to
 ensure that he gives full consideration to his actions, and reflects
 long and hard on the consequences of his writing and the value of his
 life.
 On the other hand, some authors are well known to have the highest
 moral pedigree: a fact that is plainly obvious from the company they
 keep, the Working Groups they attend, and their eligibility for
 NomCom.  It is clearly unnecessary for such esteemed persons to waste

Farrel Informational [Page 2] RFC 4041 Routing Morality Section Requirements 1 April 2005

 effort on Morality Considerations sections.  It is inconceivable that
 anything that they write would have anything other than a beneficial
 effect on the Routing Area and the Internet in general.

2.2. Mandatory Subsections

 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).
  1. Likelihood of misuse by depraved or sick individuals. This

subsection must fully address the possibility that the proposed

    protocols or protocol extensions might be used for the
    distribution of blue, smutty, or plain disgusting images.
  1. Likelihood of misuse by misguided individuals. There is an

obvious need to protect minors and people with misguided thought

    processes from utilising the protocols or protocol extensions for
    purposes that would inevitably do them harm.
  1. Likelihood of misuse by large, multi-national corporations. Such

a thought is, of course, unthinkable.

  1. Availability of oversight facilities. There are those who would

corrupt our morals motivated as they are by a hatred of the

    freedom of Internet access with which we are graced.  We place a
    significant burden of responsibility on those who guard our
    community from these evil-doers and it is only fitting that we
    give them as much support as is possible.  Therefore, all
    encryption and obfuscation techniques MUST be excluded -
    individuals who have nothing to hide need to fear the oversight of
    those whose morals are beyond doubt.
  1. Inter-SDO impact. We must allow for other moral frameworks and

fully respect other people's right to subscribe to other belief

    systems.  Such people are, however, wrong and doomed to spend
    eternity in a dark corner with only dial-up access.  So it has
    been written.
  1. Care and concern for avian carriers. A duck may be somebody's

mother.

 Even if one or more of these subsections are considered irrelevant,
 they MUST all still be present, and MUST contain a full rebuttal of
 this deviant thought.

Farrel Informational [Page 3] RFC 4041 Routing Morality Section Requirements 1 April 2005

2.3. Optional Subsections

 Additional subsections may be added to accommodate zealots.

2.4. Placement of Morality Considerations Sections

 The Morality Considerations section MUST be given full prominence in
 each Internet Draft.

3. Applicability Scenarios

 This section outlines, by way of example, some particular areas that
 are in dire need of reform and where a short, sharp shock could make
 a really big difference.

3.1. Provision of Services

 We must do our utmost to ensure that services are delivered in a
 timely and reliable way.  Emphasis should be placed on Quality of
 Service (QoS) and meeting the needs of the consumer of the service.
 Arrangements should be made for regular provision of services, and
 sermons should be to the point and contain a strong moral message.

3.2. Political Correctness (PC)

 Political correctness has gone too far.  This problem can be traced
 way back to the 1970s when the desktop PC was invented.  It is
 necessary for Internet-Drafts to observe a form of political
 correctness, but note that you do not always have to mean what you
 say.

3.2.1. Differentiated Services

 Segregation of packets on the grounds of color is now banned and
 Internet-Drafts must not make use of this technique.
 If you follow all of the recommendations in this document, you will
 find that "packets of color" (as we must now refer to them) tend to
 avoid your points of presence, and you will no longer be troubled by
 them.

3.2.2. Jumbo Packets

 It is no longer appropriate to refer to "jumbo packets".  Please use
 the term "capacitorially challenged".

Farrel Informational [Page 4] RFC 4041 Routing Morality Section Requirements 1 April 2005

3.2.3. Byte Ordering

 Note that within Internet-Drafts, bytes (and bits) progress from the
 left to the right.  This is how things should be.

3.3. Protection or Abstinence

 Much has been made recently of the need to provide protection within
 the Internet.  It is the role of the IMM to determine when protection
 is required, and the role of the IESG bulldogs to ensure that we are
 all protected.
 However, protection is only one way to prevent unplanned outages and,
 as we all know, the ready availability of protection schemes such as
 1:1 (one-on-one) or 1:n (orgy-mode) have lead to a belief that it is
 acceptable to switch (or swing) at will.  It should be noted that
 protection can fail, and under no circumstances should extra traffic
 be countenanced.
 In reality, the only safe way to avoid passing data to your friends
 is to agree to pledge to have no control plane before marriage.  Join
 our campaign and sign up for the SONET Ring Thing.

3.4. Promiscuity

 Various disgusting protocols indulge in promiscuity.  This appears to
 happen most often when an operator is unwilling to select a single
 partner and wants to play the field.
 Promiscuous modes of operation are an abomination, exceeded only by
 multicast.

4. Terminology

 Admission Control
    The caring investigative arm of the IMM.
 Doom
    Port 666.  Need we say more?
 ECMP
    What is this?  Some kind of Communism?
 Money
    The root of all evil.

Farrel Informational [Page 5] RFC 4041 Routing Morality Section Requirements 1 April 2005

 MPLS
    What is with this "layer two-and-a-half" nonsense?  The world is
    flat, just accept the fact.
 Packet Switching
    Sounds like fraud to me.
 Path
    The route of all LSPs.
 Policy Control
    The administrative arm of the IMM.
 Random Walk
    Substance abuse is to be avoided.
 Rendezvous Point
    Poorly lit street corner.  Not to be confused with the root of all
    multicast.
 Standard Body
    What we should all strive for.
 Strawberry Ice Cream
    Something that wills the void between rational discussion and
    all-out thermo nuclear war [SCREAM].

5. Morality Considerations

 The moral pedigree of the author of this document places him and his
 writings beyond question.

6. IANA Considerations

 IANA should think carefully about the protection of their immortal
 souls.

7. Security Considerations

 Security is of the utmost importance.
 A secure Internet community will ensure the security of all of its
 members.

Farrel Informational [Page 6] RFC 4041 Routing Morality Section Requirements 1 April 2005

8. Acknowledgements

 I would like to thank my guru Alex Dipandra-Zinin.
 Jozef Wroblewski, who clearly knows promiscuous behavior when he sees
 it, pointed out some of the dangers in promiscuous operation.
 No avian carriers were harmed in the production of this document.

9. Intellectual Property Considerations

 Property is theft.  What is yours is mine.  What is mine, you keep
 your hands off.

10. Normative References

 I don't need to be told how to formulate my morals.
 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
           Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

11. Informative References

 To be frank, I don't find many other documents informative.
 [SCREAM]  Farrel, A., "Observations on Proposing Protocol
           Enhancements that Address Stated Requirements but also go
           Further by Meeting more General Needs", Work in Progress,
           June 2003.

Author's Address

 Adrian Farrel
 Old Dog Consulting
 Phone: I'm not telling you that.  Why do you ask, anyway?
 EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk

Farrel Informational [Page 7] RFC 4041 Routing Morality Section Requirements 1 April 2005

Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
 contained in BCP 78 and at www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html, and
 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.
 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM 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.

Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.
 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
 ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
 Internet Society.

Farrel Informational [Page 8]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc4041.txt · Last modified: 2005/03/31 01:14 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki