As per Relevance of the word followed, we have this rfc below:
Network Working Group J.
Request for Comments: 825
November 1982
Request for Comments on Requests for
This RFC is intended to clarify the status of RFCs and to provide
guidance for the authors of RFCs in the future. It is in a sense
specification for RFCs
There are several reasons for publishing a memo as an RFC, for example
to make available some information for interested people, or to begin
continue a discussion of an interesting idea, or to specify a protocol
Each RFC is to include on its title page or in the first or
paragraph a statement describing the intention of the RFC
The following sample paragraphs may be used to satisfy
requirement
This RFC specifies a standard for the ARPA Internet community
Hosts on the ARPA Internet are expected to adopt and
this standard
The purpose of this RFC is to focus discussion on
problems in the ARPA Internet and possible methods of solution
No proposed solutions this document are intended as
at this time. Rather, it is hoped that a general
will emerge as to the appropriate solution to such problems
leading eventually to the adoption of standards
This RFC is presented to members of the ARPA Internet
in order to solicit their reactions to the proposals
in it. While perhaps the issues discussed are not
relevant to the research problems of the ARPA Internet,
may be particularly interesting to some researchers
implementers
Postel [Page 1]
RFC 825 November 1982
RFC on RFCs
This RFC is issued in response to the need for
information about the status and progress of various
in the ARPA Internet community. The information contained
this document is accurate as of the date of publication, but
subject to change. Subsequent RFCs may reflect such changes
This RFC is issued to report on the results of a meeting.
may document significant decisions made that impact
implementation of network protocols, or limit or expand the
of optional features of protocols. Other meeting results
be indicated including (but not limited to) policy issues
technical topics discussed and problems needing further work
Of course these paragraphs need not be followed word for word,
the general intent of the RFC must be made clear
RFCs are distributed online by being stored as public access files,
a short messages is sent to the distribution list indicating
availability of the memo
The online files are copied by the interested people and printed
displayed at their site on their equipment. This means that the
of the online files must meet the constraints of a wide variety
printing and display equipment
To meet these constraints the following rules are established for
format of RFCs
The character codes are ASCII
Each page must be limited to 58 lines followed by a form feed on
line by itself
Each line must be limited to 72 characters followed by
return and line feed
No overstriking (or underlining) is allowed
These "height" and "width" constraints include any headers, footers
page numbers, or left side indenting
Requests to be added to or deleted from this distribution list should
sent to NIC@SRI-NIC. Submissions for RFCs should be sent
POSTEL@USC-ISIF
Postel [Page 2]
if you see any problems within the linking, don't worry be happy,
this is version 0.1 of the Relevance System and you gotta expect some crappy subroutines sometimes,
just be content we did not write this in Java, which would have made this "bigger and better" HAHAHHA.
RFC documents can be found at I.E.T.F.
Relevance System Copyright © 2002 Spectrum WorldResearch
other technical nosh by ServerMasters Corporation
collaboration of BobX
