Request for comments on Requests For Comments
A guide to identifying an RFC's purpose and formatting it for distribution.
Postel, J., "Request for comments on Requests For Comments", RFC 825, DOI 10.17487/RFC0825, November 1982, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc825>.
@misc{rfc825,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 825,
howpublished = {RFC 825},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0825},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc825},
author = {J. Postel},
title = {{Request for comments on Requests For Comments}},
pagetotal = 2,
year = 1982,
month = nov,
} RFC text
Network Working Group J. Postel
Request for Comments: 825 ISI
November 1982
Request for Comments on Requests for Comments
This RFC is 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 RFC is 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 RFC specifies 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 RFC is 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 RFC is 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.
RFC on RFCs
Status
This RFC is 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 RFC is 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 RFC must 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.
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1Why State an RFC's Intention
RFC 825 says that RFCs may make information available, start or continue discussion, or specify a protocol. It asks every RFC to include a statement of intention on the title page or in one of the first paragraphs.
Readers should be able to tell what kind of document they are reading. RFC 825 asks authors to say so near the beginning.
§2Five Kinds of Intention
The memo provides example paragraphs for a Specification, Discussion, Information, Status, and Report. It says the samples need not be copied word for word, but the general intent of the RFC must be clear.
The examples distinguish a proposed standard from discussion, information, a status update, or a meeting report. Authors may use different wording if the purpose remains clear.
§3Formatting Rules
The memo sets ASCII as the character code. Each page is limited to 58 lines followed by a form feed on a line by itself, and each line is limited to 72 characters followed by carriage return and line feed. It disallows overstriking and underlining, including in headers and footers.
The format limits page height and line width so files can be printed or displayed on varied equipment. It also disallows overstriking and underlining.
§4Distribution and Submission
RFCs are stored as public-access files, and a short message is sent to the distribution list when a memo becomes available. RFC 825 lists one address for requests to join or leave the list and another for RFC submissions.
New memos are stored as public files, and the distribution list is notified. The memo gives separate contact addresses for list changes and submissions.