1161
submitted 1 year ago by Two9A@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Let's get the AMAs kicked off on Lemmy, shall we.

Almost ten years ago now, I wrote RFC 7168, "Hypertext Coffeepot Control Protocol for Tea Efflux Appliances" which extends HTCPCP to handle tea brewing. Both Coffeepot Control Protocol and the tea-brewing extension are joke Internet Standards, and were released on Apr 1st (1998 and 2014). You may be familiar with HTTP error 418, "I'm a teapot"; this comes from the 1998 standard.

I'm giving a talk on the history of HTTP and HTCPCP at the WeAreDevelopers World Congress in Berlin later this month, and I need an FAQ section; AMA about the Internet and HTTP. Let's try this out!

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ColdPints@infosec.pub 24 points 1 year ago

What's the process for submitting RFCs? And how do they pick which joke RFC they'll publish? That's a meeting I'd like to be a fly on the wall of

[-] Two9A@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

For "real" RFCs that aren't Apr 1st jokes, there's an independent submissions track for the public to write Internet-Drafts and then submit them into the review process.

With the joke RFCs, they get emailed straight to the editor at least two weeks beforehand. I'm not privy to the selection meeting, but I expect it's fun.

[-] Klaboesterbeer@feddit.nl 23 points 1 year ago

Are you by any chance, British?

[-] Two9A@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Did the predilection for tea give me away?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] foggy@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

I've heard that the internet is a series of tubes.

Can you confirm?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] fidodo@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We're there any early internet standards you were super bullish on at the time that didn't get picked up? In retrospect, if it had been adopted do you think it would have had the impact you were hoping for

[-] Two9A@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

That's a tough one: most standards are codified as such because they're already seeing wide use. The major example of one that's been worked the other way around is IPv6: it's been a standard for a very long time, and still doesn't seem to be seeing adoption.

Of course, I wouldn't say I was bullish on IPv6. 32 bits is enough for anyone, right.

[-] Clav64@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I loved sharing this with my senior who hadn't seen it before, and it gave our small team a Ggod chuckle one afternoon. Thanks for your creation.

With the absence of a crystal ball, but with excellent inner knowledge, what future standards could you see being implemented in the next 10 years for internet?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kaboomi@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

I’m actually going to that conference! What’s the title of your talk? I’ll be sure to attend it!

[-] Two9A@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Excellent. I'm on Stage 4 on the Thursday afternoon: "Brewing Tea Over The Internet".

Should be fun times, see you there.

[-] lunaticneko@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago

You can unilaterally create another status code. What do you create?

[-] perviouslyiner@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

Wasn't there a new HTTP action recently proposed for "This is a JSON RPC request that we've convinced ourselves is actually REST and we've been using POST and someone finally pointed out that that was stupid"?

Not a new status code but still vaguely amusing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] christophski@feddit.uk 18 points 1 year ago

What code should be used if we are expecting something to be a teapot? In this scenario it seems a 4XX is inappropriate because there is no error

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] deepdivedylan@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Was RFC 7168 written with Captain Picard's tea Earl Gray, hot in mind? If not, are follow up modifications planned?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 18 points 1 year ago

A new RFC for IPv7. It's just IPv4 with an extra octet. Yes or no?

[-] Two9A@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

I don't think the extra address space of IPv6 is the problem holding back its adoption, so "IPv4 with another octet" would likely run into the same issues.

Not that it's a bad idea, it's just an idea that's unlikely to catch on.

[-] bric@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

What would you say is holding IPv6 back?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] RustedSwitch@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

Is the internet still kept in Big Ben?

[-] elvith@feddit.de 18 points 1 year ago

Yes, unless Jen needs to borrow it for a presentation.

[-] brad@toad.work 15 points 1 year ago

No question, I just want to thank you for being the type of person that would do this and thank you again for actually doing it. The world is a fun place. I like it.

[-] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago

I just found out about this on Brodie Robertson’s yt channel! I am not a teapot btw!!

[-] Two9A@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

Glad to hear it, you should walk around with a HTTP 418 hat so more people know you're not a teapot.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Saigonauticon@voltage.vn 15 points 1 year ago

Has anyone implemented it in a physical device?

e.g. RFC3514 (an 'evil' flag you can set in malicious packets so a firewall knows to drop them) was actually used by a few people to see what would happen, with interesting results.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ryannathans@lemmy.fmhy.ml 14 points 1 year ago

How do you feel about the internet being "stuck" with an MTU of 1500?

[-] Two9A@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

This is kinda the problem with widely deployed standards like TCP/IPv4: if you have even one device out there that's on the "old" standard, it won't be able to talk under a hypothetical new standard like IPv6 or TCP-with-huge-packets. And there are a lot more than one device out there that would be cut off.

As I understand it, the big pipes have very large MTUs now, and the edge routers cut up the packets for further transport. That's probably the only way we can realistically go forward.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sirnak@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Did you author any other standards and how high is the chance of a proposal being approved if you don't have any accepted proposal yet?

[-] Two9A@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

7168 is my only foray into writing an Internet Standard RFC. If you have a good idea for one, you should definitely get in touch with the RFC Editors; I found them very approachable and willing to work with my idea, moulding it into a document that's compliant to their (admittedly old-timey 60's) documentation standards.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
1161 points (98.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43027 readers
2039 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS