



Independent Submission                                        G.R. Beard
Request for Comments: 9948                                      O.F. Art
Category: Informational                         Internet Protocol Police
ISSN: 2070-1721                                       H. Alvestrand, Ed.
                                                                  Google
                                                            1 April 2026


        Internet Protocol Police (IPP) - Schedule of Punishments

Abstract

   The Internet Protocol Police (IPP) is in charge of punishing willful
   infractions of the Collected Wisdom of the IETF community.  This
   document sets out the schedule of punishments for such infractions.

Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
   RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
   its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
   implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for publication by
   the RFC Editor are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard;
   see Section 2 of RFC 7841.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9948.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction
   2.  Conventions and Definitions
   3.  Schedule of Punishments
   4.  Percussive Persuasion During Protocol Development
   5.  Recidivism Studies
   6.  Security Considerations
   7.  IANA Considerations
   8.  References
     8.1.  Normative References
     8.2.  Informative References
   Acknowledgments
   Authors' Addresses

1.  Introduction

   The Internet Protocol Police (IPP) [RFC8962] has long served as an
   unifying force for maintaining the Internet Architectural Principles
   and the Rules of Sanity.  The IPP has a harsh schedule for punishing
   infractions of these Principles and Rules.  The schedule has served
   the IETF community well being applied in an informal manner, but the
   community has complained that the punishments are served
   indiscriminately and unaccountably.  Therefore, this document
   publishes the schedule for the enlightenment of everyone in the IETF
   community, especially newcomers.

2.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

   In addition, the key words defined in [RFC6919] MIGHT apply.

3.  Schedule of Punishments

   These punishments are meted out after due consideration of
   infractions of the Principles and Rules.  Due to the time required to
   reach consensus in the IPP about the need for these punishments, the
   punishments are usually applied late in the process, frequently as
   previous flawed efforts are brought up as examples to follow for new
   work.

   *The Raised Eyebrow*
      This is a punishment for lesser infractions, such as bad grammar,
      dangling participles, and inconsistent terminology.

   *The Frown*
      This punishment is reserved for more dire infractions, such as
      using a codepoint from an IANA-managed namespace without
      registering it, state tables that have dead ends, or ABNF to
      describe syntax that cannot be parsed by any parsing technology
      known in the year 1993.

   *The Shaking of the Head*
      This punishment is reserved for infractions involving complexity
      swept under the carpet, such as invoking the case-fold operation
      without a Unicode considerations section or marking critical parts
      as "implementation defined".

   *The Finger Wag*
      This punishment is reserved for the infractions described in
      [RFC4041].

   *The Head-in-Hand Gesture*
      This mythical punishment has been rumored to have been invoked by
      the first greybeard to fully understand the implications of HTML/
      HTTP.  However, the gravity of the gesture has precluded its
      application to more common cases.

4.  Percussive Persuasion During Protocol Development

   While a protocol is being developed, random greybeards may perform
   actions resembling the punishments defined in Section 3 while
   attempting to steer misguided younglings onto the Path of Wisdom.
   However, such guidance is more commonly applied in the form of verbal
   utterances, a sampling of which are described in the following
   subsections.  Newcomers to the process are well advised to take
   careful notice when these occur during protocol development; however,
   these utterances are _not_, by themselves, punishments.

   Despite rumors, the percussive application of a wet noodle has never
   been considered an appropriate part of persuasive measures.

4.1.  "This part needs elaboration."

   This guidance needs no elaboration.

4.2.  "You may have failed to consider ..."

   I see a way to attack your protocol, and you have no defense against
   it.

4.3.  "The threat model seems underdeveloped."

   If you explain the whole thing again, perhaps you will understand why
   it's totally unworkable without me having to understand it.

4.4.  "This may work in the lab, but ..."

   Operational considerations are either missing or hopelessly naive.

4.5.  "You have not thought this through."

   Go home and start over.

5.  Recidivism Studies

   The study of repeat offenders has some methodological difficulties,
   such as the tendency of excitable individuals to abandon the IETF
   upon repeated percussive persuasion, but recidivism is believed to
   compare reasonably with that of the US prison system (66%)
   [RECIDIVISM].

   One contributing factor to this relatively low observed incidence may
   be the educative value of footguns; once people have realized that
   the hole in their foot is in fact the result of ignoring percussive
   persuasion, they may be more inclined to heed advice in later
   iterations.

6.  Security Considerations

   Due to the nature of this memo, it establishes an Epimenides Paradox
   Field [EPIMENIDES] for its subject matter, thereby preventing any
   harm to the Internet from being caused by its publication.

7.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

   Unfortunately, IANA procedures do not include excursions into the
   imaginary plane, so the possibility of consulting the IPP before
   assigning controversial numbers is precluded.  However, the IPP
   enjoys positive relationships with multiple designated experts
   [RFC8126], so the situation is not unsalvageable.

8.  References

8.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC6919]  Barnes, R., Kent, S., and E. Rescorla, "Further Key Words
              for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", RFC 6919,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6919, April 2013,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6919>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.

   [RFC8962]  Grover, G., ten Oever, N., Cath, C., and S. Sahib,
              "Establishing the Protocol Police", RFC 8962,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8962, April 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8962>.

8.2.  Informative References

   [EPIMENIDES]
              Russell, B., "Mathematical Logic as Based on the Theory of
              Types", American Journal of Mathematics, Volume 30, Number
              3, pages 222-262, July 1908.

   [RECIDIVISM]
              Latzer, B., "Does the United States Have High Recidivism
              Rates? New Data Raise Questions About Prevailing Beliefs",
              DOI 10.2139/ssrn.5029176, 15 November 2024,
              <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
              papers.cfm?abstract_id=5029176>.

   [RFC4041]  Farrel, A., "Requirements for Morality Sections in Routing
              Area Drafts", RFC 4041, DOI 10.17487/RFC4041, April 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4041>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

Acknowledgments

   The development of this document was greatly facilitated by a
   comfortable keyboard and a bout of insomnia.  However, a few
   contributing individuals, listed here in alphabetical order, deserve
   to be called out:

   *  Aaron Falk

   *  Adrian Farrel

   *  John Klensin

   *  Craig Partridge

   *  Martin Thomson

Authors' Addresses

   Graham Reuben Beard
   Internet Protocol Police
   Email: greybeard@stupid.domain.name


   Oldham F. Art
   Internet Protocol Police
   Email: oldfart@stupid.domain.name


   Harald T. Alvestrand (editor)
   Google
   Email: harald@alvestrand.no
