.-------------------------------.       .---------.       .-------.       .-----------.      
  |  The Complete April Fools RFCs  |     |  Authors  |     |  Press  |     |  Order it!  |       

Feedback from readers

Please feel free to send feedback on your favorite RFC to funnybook at rfc-humor dot com

RFC 1149: Standard for the transmission of IP datagrams on Avian Carriers

The RFC 1149 implementation team: http://www.blug.linux.no/rfc1149/

RFC 2410: The NULL Encryption Algorithm and Its Use With IPsec

Many wrote in to tell us that this RFC wasn't a joke. Congrats for spotting our Easter Egg!

Paul Hoffman pointed out:
This isn't an April Fools RFC. It's a very useful protocol that allows ESP to be used for providing authentication and integrity.

RFC 2100: The Naming of Hosts

Feedback from the RFC's author:
I'd like to note, flattered though I am to be included, that the version that made it through the RFC Editorial process was not actually the canonical version: they saw fit not to *move*... but to *duplicate* the paragraph about distribution in the lede... which I've always thought made me look a bit daft.

It would have been nice had Peter and Tom mentioned they were *doing* a book ... but what can you do. :-}

The canonical version, modulo centering not in the original, is at http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/97/May/hostnames.html, and thanks to Brad for posting it.

RFC 1924: A Compact Representation of IPv6 Addresses

Anonymous fellow wrote:
Are we certain that this is intended as humor?

The encoding method specified is theoretically practical. As far as I can tell, the ONLY drawback to this scheme is mentioned in the very last section before the references: the encoded address tends to look like gibberish. (One ramification not mentioned is that if you sit on a keyboard, and happen to enter exactly 20 characters this way, chances are excellent that the result would be a legal (but hopefully unused) IPv6 address.

Whether we would WANT to use this scheme is another issue... but it seems to me that we _could_.