Network Working Group J. Postel Request for Comments: 825 ISI November 1982
Request for Comments on Requests for Comments
This RFCis intended to clarify the status of RFCs and to PRovide some guidance for the authors of RFCs in the future. It is in a sense a specification for RFCs.
There are several reasons for publishing a memo as an RFC, for example, to make available some information for interested people, or to begin or continue a discussion of an interesting idea, or to specify a protocol.
Each RFCis to include on its title page or in the first or second paragraph a statement describing the intention of the RFC.
The following sample paragraphs may be used to satisfy this requirement:
Specification
This RFCspecifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community. Hosts on the ARPA Internet are eXPected to adopt and implement this standard.
Discussion
The purpose of this RFCis to focus discussion on particular problems in the ARPA Internet and possible methods of solution. No proposed solutions this document are intended as standards at this time. Rather, it is hoped that a general consensus will emerge as to the appropriate solution to sUCh problems, leading eventually to the adoption of standards.
Information
This RFCis presented to members of the ARPA Internet community in order to solicit their reactions to the proposals contained in it. While perhaps the issues discussed are not directly relevant to the research problems of the ARPA Internet, they may be particularly interesting to some researchers and implementers.
Postel [Page 1]
RFC825 November 1982 RFCon RFCs
Status
This RFCis issued in response to the need for current information about the status and progress of various projects in the ARPA Internet community. The information contained in this document is accurate as of the date of publication, but is subject to change. Subsequent RFCs may reflect such changes.
Report
This RFCis issued to report on the results of a meeting. It may document significant decisions made that impact the implementation of network protocols, or limit or expand the use of optional features of protocols. Other meeting results may be indicated including (but not limited to) policy issues, technical topics discussed and problems needing further work.
Of course these paragraphs need not be followed Word for word, but the general intent of the RFCmust be made clear.
RFCs are distributed online by being stored as public access files, and a short messages is sent to the distribution list indicating the availability of the memo.
The online files are copied by the interested people and printed or displayed at their site on their equipment. This means that the format of the online files must meet the constraints of a wide variety of printing and display equipment.
To meet these constraints the following rules are established for the format of RFCs:
The character codes are ASCII.
Each page must be limited to 58 lines followed by a form feed on a line by itself.
Each line must be limited to 72 characters followed by carriage return and line feed.
No overstriking (or underlining) is allowed.
These "height" and "width" constraints include any headers, footers, page numbers, or left side indenting.
Requests to be added to or deleted from this distribution list should be sent to NIC@SRI-NIC. Submissions for RFCs should be sent to POSTEL@USC-ISIF.
