Documentation conventions
The original conventions for sharing Network Working Group notes.
Crocker, S.D., "Documentation conventions", RFC 3, DOI 10.17487/RFC0003, April 1969, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3>.
@misc{rfc3,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 3,
howpublished = {RFC 3},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0003},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3},
author = {S.D. Crocker},
title = {{Documentation conventions}},
pagetotal = 2,
year = 1969,
month = apr,
} RFC text
Network Working Group 4689
RFC-3 April 1969
Steve Crocker
UCLA
DOCUMENTATION CONVENTIONS
The Network Working Group seems to consist of Steve Carr of Utah, Jeff
Rulifson and Bill Duvall at SRI, and Steve Crocker and Gerard Deloche
at UCLA. Membership is not closed.
The Network Working Group (NWG) is concerned with the HOST software, the
strategies for using the network, and initial experiments with the network.
Documentation of the NWG's effort is through notes such as this. Notes
may be produced at any site by anybody and included in this series.
CONTENT
The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc. related to
the HOST software or other aspect of the network. Notes are encouraged to
be timely rather than polished. Philosophical positions without examples
or other specifics, specific suggestions or implementation techniques
without introductory or background explication, and explicit questions
without any attempted answers are all acceptable. The minimum length for
a NWG note is one sentence.
These standards (or lack of them) are stated explicitly for two reasons.
First, there is a tendency to view a written statement as ipso facto
authoritative, and we hope to promote the exchange and discussion of
considerably less than authoritative ideas. Second, there is a natural
hesitancy to publish something unpolished, and we hope to ease this
inhibition.
FORM
Every NWG note should bear the following information:
1. "Network Working Group"
"Request for Comments:" x
where x is a serial number.
Serial numbers are assigned by Bill Duvall at SRI
2. Author and affiliation
3. Date
4. Title. The title need not be unique.
DISTRIBUTION
One copy only will be sent from the author's site to"
1. Bob Kahn, BB&N
2. Larry Roberts, ARPA
3. Steve Carr, UCLA
4. Jeff Rulifson, UTAH
5. Ron Stoughton, UCSB
6. Steve Crocker, UCLA
Reproduction if desired may be handled locally.
OTHER NOTES
Two notes (1 & 2) have been written so far. These are both titled HOST
Software and are by Steve Crocker and Bill Duvall, separately.
Other notes planned are on
1. Network Timetable
2. The Philosophy of NIL
3. Specifications for NIL
4. Deeper Documentation of HOST Software.
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1Who Could Write a Note
The Network Working Group was concerned with host software, strategies for using the network, and initial network experiments. Notes documenting this work could be produced at any site by anybody and included in the series.
Anyone at any site could write a note about host software or another network topic and submit it to the series.
§1Content and Style
A note could contain any thought or suggestion related to host software or another aspect of the network. Notes were encouraged to be timely rather than polished. Philosophical positions without examples, implementation suggestions without background, and questions without attempted answers were all acceptable. The minimum length was one sentence.
The memo explains that this informality was intended to encourage exchange and discussion of ideas that were not authoritative and to reduce hesitation about publishing unpolished work.
A note did not have to be complete or polished. Even a question without an answer could be shared to encourage discussion.
§1Format and Distribution
Each note should identify the Network Working Group, its serial number, the author and affiliation, the date, and a title. Bill Duvall at SRI assigned serial numbers. One copy was sent from the author's site to the designated recipients listed in the memo, and local reproduction could be handled as needed.
Each note had a number, author, date, and title. One copy went to the listed recipients, and sites could reproduce it locally.