The openness initiated from the very first meeting of the Network Working Group continued on in a more informal formalized manner in the Request For Comments. As meeting notes, the RFCs were meant to keep members updated on the status of several things. They were also meant to gather responses from people. The Documentation Conventions RFC (RFC 3) documents the "rules" governing the production of these notes. Topping the page were the open distribution rules:
"Documentation of the NWG's effort is through notes such as this. Notes may be produced at any site by anybody and included in this series."
The guide goes on to describe the rules concerning the contents of the RFCs:
"The content of a NWG note may be any thought, suggestion, etc. related to the HOST software or other aspect of the network. Notes are encouraged to be timely rather than polished. Philosophical positions without examples or other specifics, specific suggestions or implementation techniques without introductory or background explication, and explicit questions without any attempted answers are all acceptable. The minimum length for a NWG note is one sentence."
The RFC continues to explain the philosophy behind the unprecedented amount of openness represented:
"These standards (or lack of them) are stated explicitly for two reasons. First, there is a tendency to view a written statement as ipso facto authoritative, and we hope to promote the exchange and discussion of considerably less than authoritative ideas. Second, there is a natural hesitancy to publish something unpolished, and we hope to ease this inhibition." (Crocker, RFC 3 - 1969) [The entire RFC is reproduced in the Appendix B.]
This openness led to the exchange of information. These open principles are what made the development of the Net possible.
Statements like the ones contained in RFC 3 are very progressive in their openness. Late 1960's was a time awash in popular protest for freedom of speech and demanding more of a say of how the country is run. The openness contained in trying to develop new technologies fits well with the cry for more democracy which students demanded throughout the country and the world. What is amazing is that the collaboration of the NWG (mostly graduate students) and ARPA (a component of the military), seems to be contrary to the normal atmosphere of the times. Robert Braden of the Internet Activities Board reflects on this collaboration:
"For me, participation in the development of the ARPAnet and the Internet protocols has been very exciting. One important reason it worked, I believe, is that there were a lot of very bright people all working more or less in the same direction, led by some very wise people in the funding agency. The result was to create a community of network researchers who believed strongly that collaboration is more powerful than competition among researchers. I don't think any other model would have gotten us where we are today." (RFC 1336)
What is even more important is the work of these computer scientists founded what has lead to the most amazing and democratic body (i.e.: The Net and the culture attached to it) to emerge in long time. The community that has developed and the tools which accompany it form an important democratic force.
The idea of calling these notes a "Request for Comment" is a fascinating tradition. It predates the Usenet Post, which in a fashion could be called a "request for comment" as it is the presentation of a particular person's ideas, questions or comments, to the general public (of those who read that newsgroup) for comments, criticism or suggestion, or just plain to further the readers' knowledge. Other Early RFCs echo this reality. There exist RFCs which are in response to previous RFCs. Following are some examples, more are contained in the appendix.
65 Walden, D. Comments on Host/Host Protocol document #1 1 Crocker, S. Host software 1969 April 7
39 Harslem, E.; Heafner, J. Comments on protocol re: NWG/RFC #36 38 Wolfe, S. Comments on network protocol from NWG/RFC #36 36 Crocker, S. Protocol notes 1970 March 16
47 Crowther, W. BBN's comments on NWG/RFC #33 1970 April 20 33 Crocker, S. New Host-Host Protocol 1970 February 12