Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

They should probably change their terminology away from "RFC" for referring to Rust RFCs rather than IETF ones. Maybe RRFCs or REPs something?

In this document is a perfect example of the problem, they list several Rust RFCs by RFC number, then talk about IP RFC based loopback detection, expecting everyone to know that RFC 6890 refers to an IETF one and not a Rust one. I mean, most of us can infer that just by length of the number, but it is pretty ambiguous especially when they're used in the same document like this.

I have the same thought running through my head while perusing each Rust announcement. Python has the Python Enhancement Proposal[1], and Bitcoin has their Bitcoin Improvement Proposal[2]. On the flip side, this does have the side effect of forcing me to click through to each Rust RFC linked in the announcements just to be sure.

[1] https://www.python.org/dev/peps/

[2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

RIP in peace! (Rust Improvement Proposal)

I always thought RFC was generic (and/or predates IETF). Is that not true?

It is generic and does predate IETF but it's ambiguous to which reference material if the number ranges intersect.

It is generic. IETF's RFCs are only one example.

I'm fine with projects locally using "RFC" for their own purposes, but you're correct in that once you start referring to other concepts with the same initialism one should explicitly say "IETF RFC". Namespacing matters. :)

Ember.js uses a similar naming convention. I'm not sure that it's that important to distinguish from IETF RFCs. Especially since the RFCs are linked in that document.

PHP uses the RFC terminology itself, too.

Rather than changing the name (and then me having no idea what a PEP or BIP or whatever is until I look it up—not a good way for a piece of language to work), I'd suggest namespacing the number. "RFC rust/1386" or somesuch.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact