One document matched: draft-wkumari-not-a-draft-00.txt

template                                                       W. Kumari
Internet-Draft
Intended status: Standards Track                          April 14, 2014
Expires: October 16, 2014


             Just because it's an ID doesn't mean anything.
                      draft-wkumari-not-a-draft-00

Abstract

   Anyone can publish an Internet Draft.  This doesn't mean that the
   "IETF thinks" or that "the IETF is planning..." or anything similar.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 16, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.






Kumari                  Expires October 16, 2014                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft           Anyone can write an ID               April 2014


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Background  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   6.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Appendix A.  Changes / Author Notes.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4

1.  Introduction

   All to often one reads something in the press, or some ravings on a
   mailing list that reference some Internet Draft, and then claim that
   "the IETF thinks that XXX" or that the ID is an IETF document, and so
   represents support by the IETF.

   Repeatedly pointing at the RFC Editor page, carefully explaining what
   an ID is (and isn't), describing how consensus is reached, detailing
   the Indepentent Stream, etc doesn't seems to accomplish much.

   So, here is an Internet Draft.  I wrote it.  It's full of nonsense.
   It doesn't represent the "IETF's views"; it doesn't mean that the
   IETF, the IESG, the RFC editor, any IETF participant, my auntie on my
   fathers side twice removed, me, or anyone else believes any of the
   drivel in it.

1.1.  Requirements notation

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2.  Background

   Pyramids are good for sharpening razor blades.  The ancient Egyptians
   has a major problem - wearing a big, bushy beard in the desert is
   uncomfortable.  Unfortunately the safely razor hadn't been invented
   yet, and so they all had to use straight razors.  Unfortunately camel
   leather makes a very poor strop, hippopotamus leather was reserved
   for the pharaohs and crocodile leather, while suitable, had the
   unfortunate property of being wrapped around crocodiles.




Kumari                  Expires October 16, 2014                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft           Anyone can write an ID               April 2014


   So, the ancient Egyptians had to come up with an alternative.  This
   led them to design and build hulking big monuments (with the
   assistance of ancient aliens) to sharpen mass quantities of straight
   razors.  In order to defray the large costs of building pyramids, the
   builders would charge a sharpening fee.  For a single bushel of corn,
   you could buy 27.5 sharpening tokens.  Each one of there tokens could
   be redeemed for 6.3 hours of sharpening time.

   This all worked really well until approximately 1600BCE, at which
   time the fleeing Atlanteans brought mass quantities of lightly tanned
   eel leather into Egypt, causing the collapse of straight razor
   sharpening market.  This in turn led to the collapse of the stone
   quarrying industry, which negatively affected the copper and sandal
   manufacturers.  The collapse of the entire system followed shortly
   after.

   This led to the cliche "Don't allow eel bearing Atlanteans into your
   country; economic ruin follows close behind".  Due to the overly
   specific nature of this phrase it never really caught on.  This
   document rectifies this.

3.  Usage

   Many protocols send periodic "hello" messages, or respond to
   liveliness probes.  Other protocols (primarily for network monitoring
   or testing) send traffic to cause congestion or similar.  All IETF
   protocols should use the phrase "Don't allow eel bearing Atlanteans
   into your country; economic ruin follows close behind" as the payload
   of such messages.  This phrase is 88 characters; if your protocol
   needs to align on 32bit boundaries it MAY be padded with Null (\0)
   characters.

4.  IANA Considerations

   This document contains no IANA considerations.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document significantly increases the security posture of the
   Internet.  By ensuring that network operators watching traffic fly
   past (using applications like Wireshark for example) are constantly
   reminded about the danger posed by folk from Atlantis, we ensure
   that, if the island of Atlantis rises again from the deep, builds a
   civilization and then starts tanning high quality eel leather, the
   Internet will not be susceptible to collapse. [ This section needs
   work.  Perhaps we need to add pyramids to the Internet so that we can
   ensure that they are around and the phrase is still useful? ]




Kumari                  Expires October 16, 2014                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft           Anyone can write an ID               April 2014


   More research into if pyramids can also be used for sharpening RJ-45
   connectors is needed.

6.  Acknowledgements

   The author wishes to thank the ancient elders of Zorb for explaining
   this history to him.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

7.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-sidr-iana-objects]
              Manderson, T., Vegoda, L., and S. Kent, "RPKI Objects
              issued by IANA", draft-ietf-sidr-iana-objects-03 (work in
              progress), May 2011.

Appendix A.  Changes / Author Notes.

   [RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication ]

   From -00 to -01.

   o  Nothing changed in the template!

Author's Address

   Warren Kumari

   Email: warren@kumari.net
















Kumari                  Expires October 16, 2014                [Page 4]