Is it just historic name or it has some real ground?
Should I use the term "request for comments, RFC" when putting some document just to receive comments, not to establish a standard?
feedback
|
closed as off topic by BloodPhilia, Bobby, Sathya♦, Ivo Flipse♦ Jul 2 '10 at 14:59
Questions on Super User are expected to generally relate to computer software or computer hardware, within the scope defined in the faq.
|
The request for Comments system is a vehicle adopted by the Internet Engineering Task Force as a means for publishing material for peer review, or possibly just the conveyance of new ideas, which through iteration may, or may not, become standards. Whilst the RFC system is typically the province of the IETF and to a lesser extent, other computer network engineers, other professions also have similar processes, whereby, someone may publish a document, which is then subject to peer review, etc. This is particularly true in the scientific community. | |||||||
feedback
|
|
It is historic. Those documents used to be just recommendations between peers. Someone would have one problem and he would write RFC to find out whether his solution was ok. At some stage those documents just got to be official reference for quite few things but name was kept same. Do notice that, while they are much more serious than in early days, not all RFCs are to be considered as standard. Quite few of them are just some idea or even joke. | |||
|
feedback
|
