Movatterモバイル変換

Network Working Group                                          A. FarrelRequest for Comments: 4041                            Old Dog ConsultingCategory: Informational                                     1 April 2005Requirements for Morality Sections in Routing Area DraftsStatus of This Memo   This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does   not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this   memo is unlimited.Copyright Notice   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).Abstract   It has often been the case that morality has not been given proper   consideration in the design and specification of protocols produced   within the Routing Area.  This has led to a decline in the moral   values within the Internet and attempts to retrofit a suitable moral   code to implemented and deployed protocols has been shown to be   sub-optimal.   This document specifies a requirement for all new Routing Area   Internet-Drafts to include a "Morality Considerations" section, and   gives guidance on what that section should contain.1.  Introduction   It is well accepted by popular opinion and other reliable metrics   that moral values are declining and that degeneracy is increasing.   Young people are particularly at risk from the rising depravity in   society and much of the blame can be squarely placed at the door of   the Internet.  If you do not feel safe on the streets at night, what   do you think it is like on the Information Superhighway?   When new protocols or protocol extensions are developed within the   Routing Area, it is often the case that not enough consideration is   given to the impact of the protocol on the moral fiber of the   Internet.  The result is that moral consequences are only understood   once the protocols have been implemented, and sometimes not until   after they have been deployed.Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 1]

RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005   The resultant attempts to restore appropriate behavior and purge the   community of improper activities are not always easy or   architecturally pleasant.  Further, it is possible that certain   protocol designs make morality particularly hard to achieve.   Recognising that moral issues are fundamental to the utility and   success of protocols designed within the IETF, and that simply making   a wishy-washy liberal-minded statement does not necessarily provide   adequate guarantees of a correct and proper outcome for society, this   document defines requirements for the inclusion of Morality   Considerations sections in all Internet-Drafts produced within the   Routing Area.  Meeting these requirements will ensure that proper   consideration is given to moral issues at all stages of the protocol   development process, from Requirements and Architecture, through   Specification and Applicability.   The remainder of this document describes the necessary subsections of   the Morality Considerations sections, and gives guidance about what   information should be contained in those subsections.1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document   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 inRFC 2119 [RFC2119].   The key words "SHALT", "SHALT NOT", "SMITE", and "PILLAR OF SALT" in   this document are to be interpreted as expected.2.  Presence and Placement of Morality Considerations Sections2.1.  Null Morality Considerations Sections   It may be the case that the authors of Internet-Drafts have no or few   morals.  This does not relieve them of their duty to understand the   consequences of their actions.   The more likely an author is to say that a null Morality   Considerations section is acceptable, the more pressure must be   exerted on him by the Area and the appropriate Working Group to   ensure that he gives full consideration to his actions, and reflects   long and hard on the consequences of his writing and the value of his   life.   On the other hand, some authors are well known to have the highest   moral pedigree: a fact that is plainly obvious from the company they   keep, the Working Groups they attend, and their eligibility for   NomCom.  It is clearly unnecessary for such esteemed persons to wasteFarrel                       Informational                      [Page 2]

RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005   effort on Morality Considerations sections.  It is inconceivable that   anything that they write would have anything other than a beneficial   effect on the Routing Area and the Internet in general.2.2.  Mandatory Subsections   If the Morality Considerations section is present, it MUST contain at   least the following subsections.  The content of these subsections is   surely self-evident to any right-thinking person.  Further guidance   can be obtained from your moral guardian, your household gods, or   from any member of the IMM (Internet Moral Majority).   -  Likelihood of misuse by depraved or sick individuals.  This      subsection must fully address the possibility that the proposed      protocols or protocol extensions might be used for the      distribution of blue, smutty, or plain disgusting images.   -  Likelihood of misuse by misguided individuals.  There is an      obvious need to protect minors and people with misguided thought      processes from utilising the protocols or protocol extensions for      purposes that would inevitably do them harm.   -  Likelihood of misuse by large, multi-national corporations.  Such      a thought is, of course, unthinkable.   -  Availability of oversight facilities.  There are those who would      corrupt our morals motivated as they are by a hatred of the      freedom of Internet access with which we are graced.  We place a      significant burden of responsibility on those who guard our      community from these evil-doers and it is only fitting that we      give them as much support as is possible.  Therefore, all      encryption and obfuscation techniques MUST be excluded -      individuals who have nothing to hide need to fear the oversight of      those whose morals are beyond doubt.   -  Inter-SDO impact.  We must allow for other moral frameworks and      fully respect other people's right to subscribe to other belief      systems.  Such people are, however, wrong and doomed to spend      eternity in a dark corner with only dial-up access.  So it has      been written.   -  Care and concern for avian carriers.  A duck may be somebody's      mother.   Even if one or more of these subsections are considered irrelevant,   they MUST all still be present, and MUST contain a full rebuttal of   this deviant thought.Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 3]

RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 20052.3.  Optional Subsections   Additional subsections may be added to accommodate zealots.2.4.  Placement of Morality Considerations Sections   The Morality Considerations section MUST be given full prominence in   each Internet Draft.3.  Applicability Scenarios   This section outlines, by way of example, some particular areas that   are in dire need of reform and where a short, sharp shock could make   a really big difference.3.1.  Provision of Services   We must do our utmost to ensure that services are delivered in a   timely and reliable way.  Emphasis should be placed on Quality of   Service (QoS) and meeting the needs of the consumer of the service.   Arrangements should be made for regular provision of services, and   sermons should be to the point and contain a strong moral message.3.2.  Political Correctness (PC)   Political correctness has gone too far.  This problem can be traced   way back to the 1970s when the desktop PC was invented.  It is   necessary for Internet-Drafts to observe a form of political   correctness, but note that you do not always have to mean what you   say.3.2.1.  Differentiated Services   Segregation of packets on the grounds of color is now banned and   Internet-Drafts must not make use of this technique.   If you follow all of the recommendations in this document, you will   find that "packets of color" (as we must now refer to them) tend to   avoid your points of presence, and you will no longer be troubled by   them.3.2.2.  Jumbo Packets   It is no longer appropriate to refer to "jumbo packets".  Please use   the term "capacitorially challenged".Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 4]

RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 20053.2.3.  Byte Ordering   Note that within Internet-Drafts, bytes (and bits) progress from the   left to the right.  This is how things should be.3.3.  Protection or Abstinence   Much has been made recently of the need to provide protection within   the Internet.  It is the role of the IMM to determine when protection   is required, and the role of the IESG bulldogs to ensure that we are   all protected.   However, protection is only one way to prevent unplanned outages and,   as we all know, the ready availability of protection schemes such as   1:1 (one-on-one) or 1:n (orgy-mode) have lead to a belief that it is   acceptable to switch (or swing) at will.  It should be noted that   protection can fail, and under no circumstances should extra traffic   be countenanced.   In reality, the only safe way to avoid passing data to your friends   is to agree to pledge to have no control plane before marriage.  Join   our campaign and sign up for the SONET Ring Thing.3.4.  Promiscuity   Various disgusting protocols indulge in promiscuity.  This appears to   happen most often when an operator is unwilling to select a single   partner and wants to play the field.   Promiscuous modes of operation are an abomination, exceeded only by   multicast.4.  Terminology   Admission Control      The caring investigative arm of the IMM.   Doom      Port 666.  Need we say more?   ECMP      What is this?  Some kind of Communism?   Money      The root of all evil.Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 5]

RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005   MPLS      What is with this "layer two-and-a-half" nonsense?  The world is      flat, just accept the fact.   Packet Switching      Sounds like fraud to me.   Path      The route of all LSPs.   Policy Control      The administrative arm of the IMM.   Random Walk      Substance abuse is to be avoided.   Rendezvous Point      Poorly lit street corner.  Not to be confused with the root of all      multicast.   Standard Body      What we should all strive for.   Strawberry Ice Cream      Something that wills the void between rational discussion and      all-out thermo nuclear war [SCREAM].5.  Morality Considerations   The moral pedigree of the author of this document places him and his   writings beyond question.6.  IANA Considerations   IANA should think carefully about the protection of their immortal   souls.7.  Security Considerations   Security is of the utmost importance.   A secure Internet community will ensure the security of all of its   members.Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 6]

RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 20058.  Acknowledgements   I would like to thank my guru Alex Dipandra-Zinin.   Jozef Wroblewski, who clearly knows promiscuous behavior when he sees   it, pointed out some of the dangers in promiscuous operation.   No avian carriers were harmed in the production of this document.9.  Intellectual Property Considerations   Property is theft.  What is yours is mine.  What is mine, you keep   your hands off.10.  Normative References   I don't need to be told how to formulate my morals.   [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate             Requirement Levels",BCP 14,RFC 2119, March 1997.11.  Informative References   To be frank, I don't find many other documents informative.   [SCREAM]  Farrel, A., "Observations on Proposing Protocol             Enhancements that Address Stated Requirements but also go             Further by Meeting more General Needs", Work in Progress,             June 2003.Author's Address   Adrian Farrel   Old Dog Consulting   Phone: I'm not telling you that.  Why do you ask, anyway?   EMail: adrian@olddog.co.ukFarrel                       Informational                      [Page 7]

RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005Full Copyright Statement   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions   contained inBCP 78 and at www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html, and   except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET   ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,   INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE   INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.Intellectual Property   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be   found inBCP 78 andBCP 79.   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository athttp://www.ietf.org/ipr.   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-   ipr@ietf.org.Acknowledgement   Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the   Internet Society.Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 8]