Documentation conventions
Early rules for writing and distributing Network Working Group notes.
Crocker, S.D., "Documentation conventions", RFC 10, DOI 10.17487/RFC0010, July 1969, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc10>.
@misc{rfc10,
series = {Request for Comments},
number = 10,
howpublished = {RFC 10},
publisher = {RFC Editor},
doi = {10.17487/RFC0010},
url = {https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc10},
author = {S.D. Crocker},
title = {{Documentation conventions}},
pagetotal = 3,
year = 1969,
month = jul,
} RFC text
Network Working Group S. Crocker
RFC-10 UCLA
29 July 1969
DOCUMENTATION CONVENTIONS
This note is a revision of NWG/RFC #3
The Network Working Group seems to consist of Steve Carr at Utah, Elmer
Shapiro and Bill English SRI, Steve Crocker at UCLA, John Haefner at
RAND, Paul Rovner and Jim Curry at Lincoln Labs. Membership is not closed.
The Network Working Group (NWG) is concerned with the HOST software, the
strategies for using the network, and initial experience with the network.
Documentation of the NWG's effort is through notes such as this. Notes
may be produced at any site by anybody and included in this series.
CONTENT
The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc. related to
the HOST software or other aspect of the network. Notes are encouraged to
be timely rather than polished. Philosophical positions without examples
or other specifics, specific suggestions or implementation techniques
without introductory or background explication, and explicit questions
without any attempted answers are all acceptable. The minimum length for
a NWG note is one sentence.
These standards (or lack of them) are stated explicitly for two reasons.
First, there is a tendency to view a written statement as ipso facto
authoritative, and we hope to promote the exchange and discussion of
considerably less than authoritative ideas. Second, there is a natural
hesitancy to publish something unpolished, and we hope to ease this
inhibition.
FORM
Every NWG note should bear the following information:
1. "Network Working Group"
"Request for Comments:"x (x underscored)
where x is a serial number (x underscored)
Serial numbers are assigned by Steve Crocker at UCLA
2. Author and affiliation
3. Date
4. Title. The title need not be unique.
DISTRIBUTION
One copy only will bve sent from the author's site to:
1. Steve Crocker, UCLA
2. Ron Stoughton, UCSB
3. Elmer Shapiro, SRI
4. Steve Carr, Utah
5. John Haefner, RAND
6. Paul Rovner, LL
7. Bob Kahn, BB&N
8. Larry Roberts, ARPA
9. Jerry Cole, SDC
Reproduction if desired may be handled locally.
ADDRESSES
Below are the most current addresses I have. Please correct as necessary.
Steve Crocker UCLA
3732 Boelter Hall (213) 825-4864
UCLA 825-2543 Sec'y
Los Angeles, California 90024
Ron Stoughton UCSB
Computer Research Lab. (805) 961-3221
UCSB
Santa Barbara, California 93106
Elmer Shapiro SRI
Stanford Research Institute (415)326-6200
333 Ravenswood
Menlo Park, California 94025
Steve Carr Utah
Computer Science Dept. (801) 322-8224
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah 84ll2
John Haefner RAND
The Rand Corp. (213) 393-0411
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, California 90406
Paul D. Rovner LL
Mass. Inst. of Tech. (617) 662-5500
Lincoln Laboratory B-115 X7211
P.O. Box 73
Lexington, Mass. 02173
Robert Kahn BBN
Bolt, Beranek and Newman (617) 491-1850
50 Moulton St. 49l-1868
Cambridge, Mass. 02138
Larry Roberts ARPA
ODS/ARPA (202) OX 7-8663
3D167 Pentagon OX 7-8654
Washington, D.C. 2030l
Jerry Cole SDC
7842 Croyden 2500 Colorado
L.A., California 90045 Santa Monica, California 90406
(213) 393-9411
X438
X6019 Sec'y
ISO Plain Language
On this page
§1The Network Working Group Notes
This note by S. Crocker, dated July 29, 1969, revises NWG/RFC 3. It describes the Network Working Group as concerned with HOST software, strategies for using the network, and early network experience.
Notes could be produced at any site by anyone and included in the series. Membership in the group was not closed.
The group used notes to share ideas about host software and the network. Anyone at any site could contribute a note.
§1What a Note May Contain
A note may contain any thought or suggestion related to HOST software or another aspect of the network. The RFC encourages timeliness rather than polish, and says a note can be as short as one sentence.
It gives two reasons: written statements can be mistaken for authoritative positions, and people may hesitate to publish unpolished ideas. The conventions are intended to encourage discussion.
A note did not need to be complete or polished. The goal was to make it easier for people to share ideas for discussion.
§1Information on Each Note
Each note should include the Network Working Group and Request for Comments labels with a serial number, the author's name and affiliation, a date, and a title. Titles do not need to be unique.
Steve Crocker at UCLA assigns the serial numbers.
Each note needs a number, an author and affiliation, a date, and a title. The title can be reused.
§1Distribution
The author sends one copy from their site to each person on the listed distribution list. The recipients include representatives at UCLA, UCSB, SRI, Utah, RAND, Lincoln Labs, BBN, ARPA, and SDC.
Recipients may reproduce the note locally if they want additional copies.
The author sends one copy to each listed recipient. Readers can make more copies locally.