Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pretty RFC

pretty-rfc.herokuapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Pretty RFC

#61

Post by krig »

signa11 wrote: post #55
jrockway wrote: post #11

Interesting. I thought I wanted something like this, but the problem with RFCs is the archaic writing style. It's hard to understand the details of a low-level network protocol when you also have to remember their redefinitions of words like SHOULD, MUST, MAY, MIGHT, PERHAPS, QUITE POSSIBLY and sort through ASCII art that is split across multiple pages. (The standards are also excessively wordy and poorly organized.…

> So basically, the all text format of RFCs is the least of their problems. try reading specs that are from 3gpp, and then you would realize the bastion of clarity that is ietf. and the format of 3gpp specs is ms-word (yes you read that right), there is zero hyper-linking across various specs, finding how something works etc. is a matter of opening up at least 3-5 documents, and have a standards guy next to you to ma…

I was going to make this exact comment. I've been working on implementing part of the 3GPP diameter protocols, and they are an absolute nightmare in comparison to reading RFCs. So many documents that mostly repeat what other documents say, adding a small piece of information here and there with hundreds of cross-references, in a completely unreadable format.

As for the ms-word-ness, I recommend this site for PDF versions of the documents [1]. Just bask in the ridiculous amount of versions and documents in that list and be happy that RFCs are at least human-readable and in a standardized format...

1: http://quintillion.co.jp/3GPP/Specs/

Re: Pretty RFC

#62

Post by MichaelGG »

Finally! I've even paid for Word documents of RFCs (hello, SIP) just to have them marked up, without the idiotic headers in the middle of each page, and hyperlinked throughout.

Compared to reading some other specs (like, say, some of the SCSI ones) RFCs are just painful. Especially with the ASCII art diagrams.

Now, if only the IETF could realise that "being liberal in what you accept" is a horrible idea and remove all usages of SHOULD/MAY or "infer", we'd really be rolling.

Re: Pretty RFC

#63

Post by signa11 »

krig wrote: post #61
signa11 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So basically, the all text format of RFCs is the least of their problems. try reading specs that are from 3gpp, and then you would realize the bastion of clarity that is ietf. and the format of 3gpp specs is ms-word (yes you read that right), there is zero hyper-linking across various specs, finding how something works etc. is a matter of opening up at least 3-5 documents, and have a standards guy next to you to ma…

I was going to make this exact comment. I've been working on implementing part of the 3GPP diameter protocols, and they are an absolute nightmare in comparison to reading RFCs. So many documents that mostly repeat what other documents say, adding a small piece of information here and there with hundreds of cross-references, in a completely unreadable format. As for the ms-word-ness, I recommend this site for PDF vers…

oh dear lord! diameter is totally insane. other than the base protocol, everything else e.g. the gx, s6 specs are impossible to decipher. with multiple versions etc. things are even more insane, and hunting down for duffs boils down following the cr's for the version. aghhh! I have been using the above site that you mentioned, but it still doesn't take the pain away...

Re: Pretty RFC

#64

Post by entropy_ »

signa11 wrote: post #55
jrockway wrote: post #11

Interesting. I thought I wanted something like this, but the problem with RFCs is the archaic writing style. It's hard to understand the details of a low-level network protocol when you also have to remember their redefinitions of words like SHOULD, MUST, MAY, MIGHT, PERHAPS, QUITE POSSIBLY and sort through ASCII art that is split across multiple pages. (The standards are also excessively wordy and poorly organized.…

> So basically, the all text format of RFCs is the least of their problems. try reading specs that are from 3gpp, and then you would realize the bastion of clarity that is ietf. and the format of 3gpp specs is ms-word (yes you read that right), there is zero hyper-linking across various specs, finding how something works etc. is a matter of opening up at least 3-5 documents, and have a standards guy next to you to ma…

I don't know about 3gpp, but a while back I was working on an OMA-DM implementation and those specs are a nightmare.

Re: Pretty RFC

#70

Post by telemachos »

goblin89 wrote: post #69

There are EPUB and Mobipocket versions of all RFCs already available, by the way. See this thread: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/79attendees/current/msg... .

The link to the mobi versions still works, but not the epub link. After some quick Googling I can't find a working source for them.

Still, it sounds like a great resource. If anyone knows of a working link for the epub, please let us know.

Post reply on HN