Subject: I need your "good" RFCs

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:51:07 -0800

Good folks,

I'm looking for people's favorite RFCs with respect to readability and
understand-ability.  Do you have ones that have always impressed you as
your favorites as how RFCs should be written to make their protocol/etc
easily understood?  If so, send a note my way (ideally using this
subject line).  I don't necessarily think you need to do a reply-all.

[And yes, I recognize that this is a subjective ask, and everyone will
have a different opinion as to "what is readable" and "what is
understandable".  That's ok -- I'm asking for opinions and not facts].

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 14:02:18 -0800

> understandable".  That's ok -- I'm asking for opinions and not facts].
Even though it's a bit self-serving, I think DKIM (rfc 4871) was pretty 
clear as it managed to get dozens of interoperable implementations. The 
ability to get interoperability without back knowledge or trawling the 
working group mailing list is a good sign that they are well written. 
Back in the day, IP and TCP RFC's were very easy to understand.

Mike

---

From: tom petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:29:31 +0000

> understandable".  That's ok -- I'm asking for opinions and not facts].

RFC1155 RFC1156 RFC1157 to which I always pointed those wanting to know 
what SNMP was, even after, perhaps especially after, SNMPv3 was up and 
running a decade or two later.

I was going to add RFC793 but Joe has beaten me to it.   RFC791 is not 
bad either.

Tom Petch