A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
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?
As it turns out, one of the Apr 1st RFCs for this year covers AI Sarcasm Detection, but I can see more serious protocols arising for the transfer of AI model data and/or training procedures in the coming years.
I'd also hope ActivityPub reaches Internet Standard level, though it may fall outside the IETF's scope of operations.
What other such joke standards (by you or others) do you like?
A little lower down the stack, I always liked the Evil Bit in TCP, a standard which removes all need for firewalls heuristics by requiring malware or packets with evil intent to set the Evil Bit. The receiver can simply drop packets with the Evil Bit set, and thus be entirely safe forever from bad traffic.
At the physical interface layer where data meets real life, I especially enjoy IP over Avian Carrier; that link in particular is to the QoS definition which extends the original spec for carrying packets by carrier pigeon.
Wow. Never knew about these :)
With the advances on SDcards, IPoAC is getting better and better.
As the saying goes, "for bandwidth, nothing beats a truck full of ~~tapes~~ 1TB MicroSDs hurtling down the highway".
Thank you for fixing a critical flaw in the original RFC.
What did you think about the Save 418 Movement? Were you involved in it in any way?
My endorsement is at the bottom of that page, in fact. I wasn't an active campaigner, but a word in favor was the least I could do.
Oops, RTFM. Well, thanks for fighting the good fight with the power of your reputation.
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
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.
Every once and a while I'd just like to see 200 get some love, but no. It's all 404 this, 502 that.
I'm just "OK". It's like being the middle child of response codes.
200 is probably the most common status no? Many successful responses will give 200 in the backend
OK
Whatβs the most impactful 418-related incident youβve witnessed? I remember a few years ago npm went down and was returning 418 which spawned jokes and chaos across the web
The incident you mention is probably the most impactful, but there's also the time the Russian military blocked IPs outside Russia by returning 418 instead of the more logical 403.
Yeah, Iβve seen people refer to this as the βfuck offβ of response codes, especially during that incident. How does that make you feel?
It's not up to Mr Masinter or myself to police the usage of anything defined in the standard; if people feel like being assholes regarding the issuance of 418 errors, at least they're being whimsical assholes.
Could be worse; could be 200 with an error message inside, negating the entire point of error codes. I see that all the time.
Yeah, GraphQL has adopted this practice as a standard and itβs kind of sad.
I have no questions, but I want to let people here know that there are two excellent websites related to this: http.cat and http.dog, for looking up HTTP status codes.
For an example, if http.cat/418 doesn't brighten your day, I don't think there's much that can.
I love this. Thank you so much.
You're welcome! I try to share this with people whenever I can, hoping that it makes someone's day better. It certainly gives me a lot of joy when I can respond to something with a relevant http cat, though the few people I do it to might be getting a little annoyed.
Not a question, but we use 418 in production! We have a nginx router that routes pages based on its path to either old frontend or new frontend. I wanted some easy way to handle the routing (and to not repeat myself), so I set the new frontend as a handler for 418 error and then just return 418 in the nginx for any page I want on new UI. I chose 418 because the others could be actually used by the old frontend and it could get all weird.
This is actually a good use of 418 in production, and one I've come across before: if you need to perform some custom handling and throwing a HTTP error is the only sensible way to do it, 418 is always available.
Unless your server really is a coffeepot, which is ...unlikely.
Getting more likely with each passing year.
Was it hard to get this standardized back in the good ol' days?
Do you think it would be as easy to do it now? If not, what challenges and hurdles would a RFC have to overcome?
The last thing I know that was pretty "significant" is the GNU Terry Pratchett header (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Pratchett#Death) and that was a community effort.
There are joke RFCs almost every year, so it's not unprecedented to add to the standards. This year, one of the additions was a Death Flag to TCP, to indicate when a connection is about to terminate. The RFC Editors are very approachable when it comes to the Apr 1st RFCs: a "real" standard would need to be drafted by someone actually in the field, but the Apr 1st's are open to public submissions as long as you're willing to redraft/edit in accordance with the documentation standards.
It's worth noting that the Clacks header is an unofficial campaign, and hasn't been standardised; the 'Pedia states that some 84,000 sites return X-Clacks-Overhead, and my own is one.
What's the funniest legitimate non-joke standardization detail you've come across?
I enjoy that the original draft for the Referer header spelled it wrong, and now we're all stuck with the typo forever...
Can someone elaborate on this please?
Edit: oh jeez. I'm so used to reading "referer" I didn't even realize it was a typo.
I just found out about this on Brodie Robertsonβs yt channel! I am not a teapot btw!!
Haha, same here! I was so proud I knew what the title was referring to before reading the post. Lol
Glad to hear it, you should walk around with a HTTP 418 hat so more people know you're not a teapot.
But then people would think they are a teapot
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
If you're writing a TEA-compliant client, you'd send the BREW request and expect a 300 Multiple Options back, whereby the server will tell you which teabags are installed. You're correct that there'll be no error, unless all the bag stocks are out server-side.
That'd return 503 Service Unavailable, of course.
What's your take on the fediverse frontier?
I think it's excellent out here. I was stuck on Reddit for the longest time, and this recent debacle has pushed me to explore the networks at the edge; this feels a lot more like the Internet of old. The analogy of email is apt, I think, with the accounts on multiple servers and the interplay between.
You awaken my nostalgia, curiosity and sense of adventure when you say "explore the networks at the edge". Are there any other networks than lemmy / mastodon that you would suggest checking out?
Are you tingly anywhere?
Internet Relay Chat's been one of those things that's always felt out on the edge. I've been on EFnet since perhaps '03, and it's a lot quieter than it was...
With people moving en masse away from the centralized sites and their Firebase-implemented chats, we may see a pick up in traffic on the IRC networks, which would be good to see.