    Network Working Group                                          A. Farrel
    Request for Comments: 4041                            Old Dog Consulting
    Category: Informational                                     1 April 2005

           Requirements for Morality Sections in Routing Area Drafts

    Status of This Memo

       This memo provides information for the Internet community.  It does
       not specify an Internet standard of any kind.  Distribution of this
       memo is unlimited.

    Copyright Notice

       Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

    Abstract

       It has often been the case that morality has not been given proper
       consideration in the design and specification of protocols produced
       within the Routing Area.  This has led to a decline in the moral
       values within the Internet and attempts to retrofit a suitable moral
       code to implemented and deployed protocols has been shown to be
       sub-optimal.

       This document specifies a requirement for all new Routing Area
       Internet-Drafts to include a "Morality Considerations" section, and
       gives guidance on what that section should contain.

    1.  Introduction

       It is well accepted by popular opinion and other reliable metrics
       that moral values are declining and that degeneracy is increasing.
       Young people are particularly at risk from the rising depravity in
       society and much of the blame can be squarely placed at the door of
       the Internet.  If you do not feel safe on the streets at night, what
       do you think it is like on the Information Superhighway?

       When new protocols or protocol extensions are developed within the
       Routing Area, it is often the case that not enough consideration is
       given to the impact of the protocol on the moral fiber of the
       Internet.  The result is that moral consequences are only understood
       once the protocols have been implemented, and sometimes not until
       after they have been deployed.

    Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 1]

    RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005

       The resultant attempts to restore appropriate behavior and purge the
       community of improper activities are not always easy or
       architecturally pleasant.  Further, it is possible that certain
       protocol designs make morality particularly hard to achieve.

       Recognising that moral issues are fundamental to the utility and
       success of protocols designed within the IETF, and that simply making
       a wishy-washy liberal-minded statement does not necessarily provide
       adequate guarantees of a correct and proper outcome for society, this
       document defines requirements for the inclusion of Morality
       Considerations sections in all Internet-Drafts produced within the
       Routing Area.  Meeting these requirements will ensure that proper
       consideration is given to moral issues at all stages of the protocol
       development process, from Requirements and Architecture, through
       Specification and Applicability.

       The remainder of this document describes the necessary subsections of
       the Morality Considerations sections, and gives guidance about what
       information should be contained in those subsections.

    1.1.  Conventions Used in This Document

       The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
       "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
       document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

       The key words "SHALT", "SHALT NOT", "SMITE", and "PILLAR OF SALT" in
       this document are to be interpreted as expected.

    2.  Presence and Placement of Morality Considerations Sections

    2.1.  Null Morality Considerations Sections

       It may be the case that the authors of Internet-Drafts have no or few
       morals.  This does not relieve them of their duty to understand the
       consequences of their actions.

       The more likely an author is to say that a null Morality
       Considerations section is acceptable, the more pressure must be
       exerted on him by the Area and the appropriate Working Group to
       ensure that he gives full consideration to his actions, and reflects
       long and hard on the consequences of his writing and the value of his
       life.

       On the other hand, some authors are well known to have the highest
       moral pedigree: a fact that is plainly obvious from the company they
       keep, the Working Groups they attend, and their eligibility for
       NomCom.  It is clearly unnecessary for such esteemed persons to waste

    Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 2]

    RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005

       effort on Morality Considerations sections.  It is inconceivable that
       anything that they write would have anything other than a beneficial
       effect on the Routing Area and the Internet in general.

    2.2.  Mandatory Subsections

       If the Morality Considerations section is present, it MUST contain at
       least the following subsections.  The content of these subsections is
       surely self-evident to any right-thinking person.  Further guidance
       can be obtained from your moral guardian, your household gods, or
       from any member of the IMM (Internet Moral Majority).

       -  Likelihood of misuse by depraved or sick individuals.  This
          subsection must fully address the possibility that the proposed
          protocols or protocol extensions might be used for the
          distribution of blue, smutty, or plain disgusting images.

       -  Likelihood of misuse by misguided individuals.  There is an
          obvious need to protect minors and people with misguided thought
          processes from utilising the protocols or protocol extensions for
          purposes that would inevitably do them harm.

       -  Likelihood of misuse by large, multi-national corporations.  Such
          a thought is, of course, unthinkable.

       -  Availability of oversight facilities.  There are those who would
          corrupt our morals motivated as they are by a hatred of the
          freedom of Internet access with which we are graced.  We place a
          significant burden of responsibility on those who guard our
          community from these evil-doers and it is only fitting that we
          give them as much support as is possible.  Therefore, all
          encryption and obfuscation techniques MUST be excluded -
          individuals who have nothing to hide need to fear the oversight of
          those whose morals are beyond doubt.

       -  Inter-SDO impact.  We must allow for other moral frameworks and
          fully respect other people's right to subscribe to other belief
          systems.  Such people are, however, wrong and doomed to spend
          eternity in a dark corner with only dial-up access.  So it has
          been written.

       -  Care and concern for avian carriers.  A duck may be somebody's
          mother.

       Even if one or more of these subsections are considered irrelevant,
       they MUST all still be present, and MUST contain a full rebuttal of
       this deviant thought.

    Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 3]

    RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005

    2.3.  Optional Subsections

       Additional subsections may be added to accommodate zealots.

    2.4.  Placement of Morality Considerations Sections

       The Morality Considerations section MUST be given full prominence in
       each Internet Draft.

    3.  Applicability Scenarios

       This section outlines, by way of example, some particular areas that
       are in dire need of reform and where a short, sharp shock could make
       a really big difference.

    3.1.  Provision of Services

       We must do our utmost to ensure that services are delivered in a
       timely and reliable way.  Emphasis should be placed on Quality of
       Service (QoS) and meeting the needs of the consumer of the service.

       Arrangements should be made for regular provision of services, and
       sermons should be to the point and contain a strong moral message.

    3.2.  Political Correctness (PC)

       Political correctness has gone too far.  This problem can be traced
       way back to the 1970s when the desktop PC was invented.  It is
       necessary for Internet-Drafts to observe a form of political
       correctness, but note that you do not always have to mean what you
       say.

    3.2.1.  Differentiated Services

       Segregation of packets on the grounds of color is now banned and
       Internet-Drafts must not make use of this technique.

       If you follow all of the recommendations in this document, you will
       find that "packets of color" (as we must now refer to them) tend to
       avoid your points of presence, and you will no longer be troubled by
       them.

    3.2.2.  Jumbo Packets

       It is no longer appropriate to refer to "jumbo packets".  Please use
       the term "capacitorially challenged".

    Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 4]

    RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005

    3.2.3.  Byte Ordering

       Note that within Internet-Drafts, bytes (and bits) progress from the
       left to the right.  This is how things should be.

    3.3.  Protection or Abstinence

       Much has been made recently of the need to provide protection within
       the Internet.  It is the role of the IMM to determine when protection
       is required, and the role of the IESG bulldogs to ensure that we are
       all protected.

       However, protection is only one way to prevent unplanned outages and,
       as we all know, the ready availability of protection schemes such as
       1:1 (one-on-one) or 1:n (orgy-mode) have lead to a belief that it is
       acceptable to switch (or swing) at will.  It should be noted that
       protection can fail, and under no circumstances should extra traffic
       be countenanced.

       In reality, the only safe way to avoid passing data to your friends
       is to agree to pledge to have no control plane before marriage.  Join
       our campaign and sign up for the SONET Ring Thing.

    3.4.  Promiscuity

       Various disgusting protocols indulge in promiscuity.  This appears to
       happen most often when an operator is unwilling to select a single
       partner and wants to play the field.

       Promiscuous modes of operation are an abomination, exceeded only by
       multicast.

    4.  Terminology

       Admission Control
          The caring investigative arm of the IMM.

       Doom
          Port 666.  Need we say more?

       ECMP
          What is this?  Some kind of Communism?

       Money
          The root of all evil.

    Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 5]

    RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005

       MPLS
          What is with this "layer two-and-a-half" nonsense?  The world is
          flat, just accept the fact.

       Packet Switching
          Sounds like fraud to me.

       Path
          The route of all LSPs.

       Policy Control
          The administrative arm of the IMM.

       Random Walk
          Substance abuse is to be avoided.

       Rendezvous Point
          Poorly lit street corner.  Not to be confused with the root of all
          multicast.

       Standard Body
          What we should all strive for.

       Strawberry Ice Cream
          Something that wills the void between rational discussion and
          all-out thermo nuclear war [SCREAM].

    5.  Morality Considerations

       The moral pedigree of the author of this document places him and his
       writings beyond question.

    6.  IANA Considerations

       IANA should think carefully about the protection of their immortal
       souls.

    7.  Security Considerations

       Security is of the utmost importance.

       A secure Internet community will ensure the security of all of its
       members.

    Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 6]

    RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005

    8.  Acknowledgements

       I would like to thank my guru Alex Dipandra-Zinin.

       Jozef Wroblewski, who clearly knows promiscuous behavior when he sees
       it, pointed out some of the dangers in promiscuous operation.

       No avian carriers were harmed in the production of this document.

    9.  Intellectual Property Considerations

       Property is theft.  What is yours is mine.  What is mine, you keep
       your hands off.

    10.  Normative References

       I don't need to be told how to formulate my morals.

       [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

    11.  Informative References

       To be frank, I don't find many other documents informative.

       [SCREAM]  Farrel, A., "Observations on Proposing Protocol
                 Enhancements that Address Stated Requirements but also go
                 Further by Meeting more General Needs", Work in Progress,
                 June 2003.

    Author's Address

       Adrian Farrel
       Old Dog Consulting

       Phone: I'm not telling you that.  Why do you ask, anyway?
       EMail: adrian@olddog.co.uk

    Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 7]

    RFC 4041         Routing Morality Section Requirements      1 April 2005

    Full Copyright Statement

       Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).

       This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
       contained in BCP 78 and at www.rfc-editor.org/copyright.html, and
       except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights.

       This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
       "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
       OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
       ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
       INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
       INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
       WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

    Intellectual Property

       The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
       Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
       pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
       this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
       might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
       made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
       on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
       found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

       Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
       assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
       attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
       such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
       specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
       http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

       The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
       copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
       rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
       this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at ietf-
       ipr@ietf.org.

    Acknowledgement

       Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
       Internet Society.

    Farrel                       Informational                      [Page 8]