request for comments definition

Request for Comments (RFC) is a series of memoranda published by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) that document detailed technical specifications for Internet standards, protocols, procedures, or concepts. These documents, which invite community review and feedback, form the core set of specifications that underpin the Internet's technical infrastructure. The RFC system was established in 1969 by Internet pioneer Steve Crocker and has evolved into a critical mechanism for maintaining the stability and interoperability of the Internet.

Background: What is the origin of Request for Comments?

The RFC system originated in 1969 during the early days of the Internet when young researcher Steve Crocker faced the challenge of coordinating the development of network protocols for ARPANET (the precursor to the Internet). He created an informal yet structured document format called "Request for Comments" to indicate the open nature of these documents.

The first RFC (RFC 1) was published on April 7, 1969, titled "Host Software," discussing issues related to early ARPANET host communications. Since then, the RFC system has evolved into the foundational process for establishing Internet standards, now managed by the IETF under the Internet Society (ISOC).

Over time, RFCs evolved beyond merely "requesting comments" - many have become formal Internet standards, such as the TCP/IP protocols (RFC 793 and RFC 791), HTTP (RFC 2616), and email protocols (like SMTP, RFC 5321).

Work Mechanism: How does the RFC process work?

RFC documents follow a rigorous creation and approval process:

1. Draft Stage: Documents are initially submitted as Internet Drafts with a six-month validity period.
2. Review Stage: Drafts undergo review by relevant working groups and the broader community to gather feedback and suggestions.
3. Consensus Building: The IETF seeks "rough consensus" rather than simple majority voting, emphasizing the quality of technical discussion.
4. Final Approval: Documents that pass review are approved by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) and assigned a permanent RFC number.
5. Publication: The RFC Editor formats the document and publishes it as an official RFC.

RFC documents are categorized into several status types:

1. Standards Track: Specifications that may become Internet standards
2. Informational: Provides general information but doesn't set standards
3. Experimental: Describes experimental work
4. Historic: Superseded by newer RFCs or no longer relevant
5. Best Current Practice (BCP): Recommended operational practices

Once published, an RFC is never changed—even if errors are discovered, corrections or updates must be made through the publication of new RFCs.

What are the risks and challenges of the RFC system?

The RFC system faces several notable challenges:

1. Slow Standardization Process: The RFC process emphasizes thoroughness and consensus, but this can lead to lengthy standardization processes that sometimes lag behind the pace of technological innovation.

2. Increasing Complexity: As Internet technologies grow more complex, the number of RFC documents has proliferated and become more specialized, creating barriers to entry for newcomers to the field.

3. Implementation Differences: Although RFCs define standards, different vendors and developers may implement them differently, leading to interoperability issues.

4. Accessibility Issues: Traditionally published in plain text format, RFCs have limitations for expressing complex algorithms or diagrams, though richer formats have been supported in recent years.

5. Global Representation: While the IETF is an open organization, participants still predominantly consist of technical experts from North America and Europe, with underrepresentation from other regions globally.

6. Standard Adoption Challenges: Many RFCs, though published, are not widely adopted, creating a phenomenon of "zombie standards" that increases the difficulty for developers to understand which standards are truly important.

The RFC system's value lies in its open, transparent process, but these challenges also reflect the inherent complexity of managing global technical standards.

The Request for Comments (RFC) system exemplifies Internet governance at its best, demonstrating how open collaboration can effectively address complex technical challenges. It not only defines the technical foundations of the Internet but also embodies the spirit of a technical community driving innovation through consensus rather than mandate. While the RFC system is not perfect, its core values—open participation, technical excellence, and community consensus—continue to shape the Internet's evolution. As a collection of the Internet's "constitution," RFCs ensure the global network operates in a unified, predictable manner, supporting the seamless digital communication we rely on today.