RFC On New Internet Routing Protocol

PoesRaven writes "An A. Farrel has put out a Request For Comments paper on a new routing protocol with profound implications for the internet, the usability of the TCP/IP protocol, and the security of the net's youngest users. From the RFC: "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." Interesting, but seems to raise some serious privacy questions.

April fools

[jimbo3123]

The april fools stories are just getting worse and worse.

I'm going to have to call it...

[whitelabrat]

Horse S**t! Isn't the lack of morality what makes the internet so nice?

This time i will eat my PDA

[FidelCatsro]

ok this one looked resonible till i got to this part
"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?"
Then it all came apart , This is a better april fools though

First I thought..

[malkavian]

April Fool..
Then I thought..
"Don't give 'em ideas!"

I'd like to remind everyone...

[r00t_ur_b0x]

that this is April Fool's Day, not Stupid Joke Day. So please don't submit an article unless it is a really well-thought-out and clever hoax. Thanks.

Morality is a subjective matter

[Ashtead]

I would think that any blocking actions caused by morality would be routed around. And presumably, the evil bit would be crucial to determine the quality of morals.

As for blockin pr0n, who cares. It would really be useful if this could block spam!

Still, problem is, who gets to sit and determine what is immoral and what isn't? And for that matter, whose morals are we talking about here, is it the FCC, the WWE, the people behind goatse, the Republican Right, or maybe some Islamic Council for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice? And who will pay them? Again, remember the system's ability to block any obstacles including taxation; the ARPAnet people back in the day thought in terms of nuclear bombs not nuclear family value enforcements...

Then again, considering the date of issue of this RFC, it is all in the +1 Funny realm anyway, which as we know, is karma neutral.

I rest my case.

As much as I know it's April 1 . . . . .

[failure-man]

This does read like something the US congress would be interested in doing.

Disturbing

[Illserve]

Have I finally lost touch with the computing industry or is this just not funny?

Even though this kind of joke has been done to death, I had hoped for a smile to at least cross my lips.

Re:Dead horses

[Proaxiom]

While I agree that RFC 1149 was the classic April Fools RFC, it was not the first. The previous year, 1989, had RFC 1097 - TELNET SUBLIMINAL-MESSAGE Option [ietf.org]. There were a couple earlier ones as well, such as the RFC 748 - TELNET RANDOMLY-LOSE Option [ietf.org] in 1978.

RFC 748 was written by the same guy who wrote RFC 4042, issued today.

I also agree that the recent April Fools RFCs aren't all that funny. The Evil Bit last year was pretty lame.

Re:Dead horses

[Illserve]

On the contrary, some jokes get funnier and funnier with retelling.

The problem is that converting one-off jokes into running gags is more art than science, and clearly something these poor guys have absolutely no grasp of.

This RFC was just pitiful, all the more so because of the obvious time investment.