Internet Engineering Task Force Statements Of Boredom (SOBs)
A humorous proposal for a new RFC category to express collective boredom with nothing.
Lyman Chapin, A. and C. Huitema, "Internet Engineering Task Force Statements Of Boredom (SOBs)", RFC 1438, DOI 10.17487/RFC1438, April 1993, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1438>.
@misc{rfc1438,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 1438,
howpublished = {RFC 1438},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC1438},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc1438},
author = {A. Lyman Chapin and C. Huitema},
title = {{Internet Engineering Task Force Statements Of Boredom (SOBs)}},
pagetotal = 2,
year = 1993,
month = apr,
} RFC text
Contents
Network Working Group L. Chapin
Request for Comments: 1438 BBN
C. Huitema
INRIA
1 April 1993
Internet Engineering Task Force
Statements Of Boredom (SOBs)
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard. Distribution of this memo is
unlimited.
Discussion
The current IETF process has two types of RFCs: standards track
documents and other RFCs (e.g., informational, experimental, FYIs).
The intent of the standards track documents is clear, and culminates
in an official Internet Standard. Informational RFCs can be
published on a less formal basis, subject to the reasonable
constraints of the RFC Editor. Informational RFCs are not subject to
peer review and carry no significance whatsoever within the IETF
process.
The IETF currently has no mechanism or means of publishing documents
that express its deep concern about something important, but
otherwise contain absolutely no useful information whatsoever. This
document creates a new subseries of RFCs, entitled, IETF Statements
Of Boredom (SOBs). The SOB process is similar to that of the normal
standards track. The SOB is submitted to the IAB, the IRSG, the
IESG, the SOB Editor (Morpheus), and the Academie Francais for
review, analysis, reproduction in triplicate, translation into ASN.1,
and distribution to Internet insomniacs. However, once everyone has
approved the document by falling asleep over it, the process ends and
the document is discarded. The resulting vacuum is viewed as having
the technical approval of the IETF, but it is not, and cannot become,
an official Internet Standard.
References
[1] Internet Activities Board, "The Internet Standards Process", RFC
1310, IAB, March 1992.
[2] Postel, J., Editor, "IAB OFFICIAL PROTOCOL STANDARDS", RFC 1410,
IAB, March 1993.
Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo, but then again, no
other issues of any importance are discussed in this memo either.
Authors' Addresses
A. Lyman Chapin
Bolt, Beranek & Newman
Mail Stop 20/5b
150 Cambridge Park Drive
Cambridge, MA 02140
USA
Phone: 1 617 873 3133
EMail: Lyman@BBN.COM
Christian Huitema
INRIA, Sophia-Antipolis
2004 Route des Lucioles
BP 109
F-06561 Valbonne Cedex
France
Phone: +33 93 65 77 15
EMail: Christian.Huitema@MIRSA.INRIA.FR
AI ELI5
On this page
§1The Problem with Nothing to Say
This is an April 1st joke document. The RFC jokes that while the IETF has two types of RFCs—standards-track documents and informational documents—it lacks a mechanism for publishing documents that express deep concern about something important but otherwise contain absolutely no useful information whatsoever.
The memo creates a fictional new RFC subseries: IETF Statements Of Boredom, or SOBs. The name itself is a humorous double entendre, playing on both "Statements of Boredom" and the conventional meaning of SOB as an acronym.
The joke says the IETF should make a special rulebook series for saying you are bored about something, but saying absolutely nothing else.
§2The SOB Process
The RFC satirizes the official RFC approval process by describing the SOB review workflow: submission to the IAB, IRSG, IESG, and the SOB Editor (named Morpheus). The process includes review, analysis, reproduction in triplicate, and even translation into ASN.1 (a technical notation). The document must also go to the Academie Francais and be distributed to "Internet insomniacs."
However, once everyone has approved the document by "falling asleep over it," the process ends and the document is discarded. The resulting vacuum is "viewed as having the technical approval of the IETF, but it is not, and cannot become, an official Internet Standard."
Experts have to read and approve it, but then they throw it away. It gets approval to become nothing.
§3Satire of the RFC Process
The RFC mocks the bureaucratic aspects of standards development by imagining a series that follows all the formal procedures of the standards track but produces nothing of value. The joke is that many RFCs receive serious review and approval while conveying little substantive information.
References to ASN.1 translation and the Academie Francais add absurdist humor, as does the mention of the "SOB Editor Morpheus." The security section playfully notes that security issues are not discussed—because "no other issues of any importance are discussed in this memo either."
It jokes that some official documents are boring and pointless, so there should be a special category for those.