Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

…and, for that matter, there was an earlier draft phase where the author was R’ing For your C. And you could have jumped in then and been more-or-less welcome.


Sounds like RFC ought to be the name of that draft phase, rather than a name encompassing all phases, especially not the final phase in which C's are no longer R'd.


Times changed. Historical names did not.

"many of the early RFCs were actual Requests for Comments and were titled as such to avoid sounding too declarative and to encourage discussion.[8][9] The RFC leaves questions open and is written in a less formal style. This less formal style is now typical of Internet Draft documents, the precursor step before being approved as an RFC." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments


Historical precedent. They assigned a grad student to write up the notes; he wasn't sure he had got everything, so he titled it an RFC.

At this point, as we close in on 10,000 final-stage documents, it's better to pretend that "RFC" is just a name, not an acronym.


RFCs can be titled Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) or policies once they are accepted.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: