RFC
A lightweight technical proposal format widely used in open-source communities and technology companies. It requires explicit listing of unresolved questions and rejected alternatives, and serves as a record of technical decision-making processes.
Core Facts
Timeline (last 90 days)
For an IETF draft to become a formal standard (RFC), it must go through multiple stages such as individual draft, working group draft and IESG review, and the cycle may last several years.
Section numbers in emails cannot point directly to an RFC, because section numbers drift between drafts; emails should point to draft revisions, and the revisions then point to specific sections.
SAP's traditional BAPI/RFC is a procedural call that can only return a fixed structure at a time, is difficult to compose across systems, and is not naturally suited to mobile; OData, by contrast, supports query parameters such as $filter, $select, and $expand, paging, caching, and idempotent semantics, naturally fitting mobile and browsers.
An IETF Internet-Draft is not equivalent to an RFC and has no mandatory binding force; anyone can submit one, and it is typically valid for six months.
The RFC process is the formal proposal mechanism for the evolution of the Rust language; anyone submits a document in the rust-lang/rfcs repository, and it is only accepted after community discussion and review by the relevant teams.
The RFC (Request for Comments) model originated in 1969 during the ARPANET era and later became the core process by which the IETF develops Internet standards.
RFC documents usually contain structured elements such as a problem statement, scheme design, comparison of alternatives, unresolved issues and impact assessment.
An IETF Internet-Draft is a precursor draft to an RFC; anyone can obtain it for free and comment publicly, with each round of revisions and review comments publicly archived.
The email protocol ecosystem is publicly maintained by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) in the form of RFC documents, and any organization or individual may implement and deploy it free of charge.
The merging of drafts is only a milestone on the standardization journey, not the end point; there is still a considerable way to go from a draft to a formal RFC and then to widespread adoption.
7 more timeline events
All Facts (17)
The IETF is the primary international body responsible for developing Internet technical standards, and the documents it publishes are called RFCs.
65%UnverifiedFor an IETF draft to become a formal standard (RFC), it must go through multiple stages such as individual draft, working group draft and IESG review, and the cycle may last several years.
50%UnverifiedSection numbers in emails cannot point directly to an RFC, because section numbers drift between drafts; emails should point to draft revisions, and the revisions then point to specific sections.
50%UnverifiedSAP's traditional BAPI/RFC is a procedural call that can only return a fixed structure at a time, is difficult to compose across systems, and is not naturally suited to mobile; OData, by contrast, supports query parameters such as $filter, $select, and $expand, paging, caching, and idempotent semantics, naturally fitting mobile and browsers.
50%UnverifiedAn IETF Internet-Draft is not equivalent to an RFC and has no mandatory binding force; anyone can submit one, and it is typically valid for six months.
50%UnverifiedThe RFC process is the formal proposal mechanism for the evolution of the Rust language; anyone submits a document in the rust-lang/rfcs repository, and it is only accepted after community discussion and review by the relevant teams.
50%UnverifiedThe RFC (Request for Comments) model originated in 1969 during the ARPANET era and later became the core process by which the IETF develops Internet standards.
50%UnverifiedRFC documents usually contain structured elements such as a problem statement, scheme design, comparison of alternatives, unresolved issues and impact assessment.
50%UnverifiedAn IETF Internet-Draft is a precursor draft to an RFC; anyone can obtain it for free and comment publicly, with each round of revisions and review comments publicly archived.
50%UnverifiedThe email protocol ecosystem is publicly maintained by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) in the form of RFC documents, and any organization or individual may implement and deploy it free of charge.
50%UnverifiedThe merging of drafts is only a milestone on the standardization journey, not the end point; there is still a considerable way to go from a draft to a formal RFC and then to widespread adoption.
50%UnverifiedWhen writing Evals, RFC-style wording such as must/must not/should should be used in the judge prompt to eliminate ambiguity, and questions should be kept atomic (one question asks only one thing).
50%UnverifiedMany research and engineering efforts have attempted to use large language models to convert natural language descriptions from protocol documents such as RFCs into formal models.
50%UnverifiedIn fast-iterating small teams, the cost of maintaining heavyweight design documents may outweigh the benefits, and there is a tendency to replace them with code, comments, and lightweight RFCs.
50%UnverifiedRFC requires that proposers explicitly list unresolved questions and rejected alternatives.
50%UnverifiedRFC (Request for Comments) is a lightweight alternative form closely related to design documents, and is widely adopted in open-source communities such as the Rust language community and the Ember.js team.
50%UnverifiedThe value of technical documentation, design reviews (RFCs/Design Docs), and incident post-mortems lies not only in their conclusions but also in the reasoning process itself.
50%