this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
1147 points (98.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43945 readers
633 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Let's get the AMAs kicked off on Lemmy, shall we.

Almost ten years ago now, I wrote RFC 7168, "Hypertext Coffeepot Control Protocol for Tea Efflux Appliances" which extends HTCPCP to handle tea brewing. Both Coffeepot Control Protocol and the tea-brewing extension are joke Internet Standards, and were released on Apr 1st (1998 and 2014). You may be familiar with HTTP error 418, "I'm a teapot"; this comes from the 1998 standard.

I'm giving a talk on the history of HTTP and HTCPCP at the WeAreDevelopers World Congress in Berlin later this month, and I need an FAQ section; AMA about the Internet and HTTP. Let's try this out!

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Are you by any chance, British?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

Did the predilection for tea give me away?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I've heard that the internet is a series of tubes.

Can you confirm?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I loved sharing this with my senior who hadn't seen it before, and it gave our small team a Ggod chuckle one afternoon. Thanks for your creation.

With the absence of a crystal ball, but with excellent inner knowledge, what future standards could you see being implemented in the next 10 years for internet?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We're there any early internet standards you were super bullish on at the time that didn't get picked up? In retrospect, if it had been adopted do you think it would have had the impact you were hoping for

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

That's a tough one: most standards are codified as such because they're already seeing wide use. The major example of one that's been worked the other way around is IPv6: it's been a standard for a very long time, and still doesn't seem to be seeing adoption.

Of course, I wouldn't say I was bullish on IPv6. 32 bits is enough for anyone, right.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m actually going to that conference! What’s the title of your talk? I’ll be sure to attend it!

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

Excellent. I'm on Stage 4 on the Thursday afternoon: "Brewing Tea Over The Internet".

Should be fun times, see you there.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You can unilaterally create another status code. What do you create?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

Wasn't there a new HTTP action recently proposed for "This is a JSON RPC request that we've convinced ourselves is actually REST and we've been using POST and someone finally pointed out that that was stupid"?

Not a new status code but still vaguely amusing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A new RFC for IPv7. It's just IPv4 with an extra octet. Yes or no?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think the extra address space of IPv6 is the problem holding back its adoption, so "IPv4 with another octet" would likely run into the same issues.

Not that it's a bad idea, it's just an idea that's unlikely to catch on.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What would you say is holding IPv6 back?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What code should be used if we are expecting something to be a teapot? In this scenario it seems a 4XX is inappropriate because there is no error

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Was RFC 7168 written with Captain Picard's tea Earl Gray, hot in mind? If not, are follow up modifications planned?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is the internet still kept in Big Ben?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year ago

Yes, unless Jen needs to borrow it for a presentation.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

No question, I just want to thank you for being the type of person that would do this and thank you again for actually doing it. The world is a fun place. I like it.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I just found out about this on Brodie Robertson’s yt channel! I am not a teapot btw!!

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Glad to hear it, you should walk around with a HTTP 418 hat so more people know you're not a teapot.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Has anyone implemented it in a physical device?

e.g. RFC3514 (an 'evil' flag you can set in malicious packets so a firewall knows to drop them) was actually used by a few people to see what would happen, with interesting results.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How do you feel about the internet being "stuck" with an MTU of 1500?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is kinda the problem with widely deployed standards like TCP/IPv4: if you have even one device out there that's on the "old" standard, it won't be able to talk under a hypothetical new standard like IPv6 or TCP-with-huge-packets. And there are a lot more than one device out there that would be cut off.

As I understand it, the big pipes have very large MTUs now, and the edge routers cut up the packets for further transport. That's probably the only way we can realistically go forward.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you think this is the dot com bubble 2.0

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

If anything, we're into the "bust" part of the bubble: layoffs have been coming in waves all year, and are continuing. There were a whole bunch of posts over on Mastodon just a couple of weeks ago, at end of quarter, where people were laid off and looking for work.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you author any other standards and how high is the chance of a proposal being approved if you don't have any accepted proposal yet?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

7168 is my only foray into writing an Internet Standard RFC. If you have a good idea for one, you should definitely get in touch with the RFC Editors; I found them very approachable and willing to work with my idea, moulding it into a document that's compliant to their (admittedly old-timey 60's) documentation standards.

load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί