= A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers
David Waitzman <dwaitzman@BBN.COM>
:doctype: internet-draft
:abbrev: IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers
:obsoletes: 10, 120
:updates: 2010, 2120
:status: informational
:name: internet-draft-avian-transmission-00
:ipr: trust200902
:area: Internet
:workgroup: Network Working Group
:keyword: avians, datagrams
:revdate: 1990-04-01T00:00:00Z
:organization: BBN STC
:phone: (617) 873-4323
:uri: http://bbn.com
:street: 10 Moulton Street
:city: Cambridge
:code: MA 02238
[abstract]
Avian carriers can provide high delay, low throughput, and low
altitude service. The connection topology is limited to a single
point-to-point path for each carrier, used with standard carriers,
but many carriers can be used without significant interference with
each other, outside of early spring. This is because of the 3D ether
space available to the carriers, in contrast to the 1D ether used by
IEEE802.3. The carriers have an intrinsic collision avoidance
system, which increases availability. Unlike some network
technologies, such as packet radio, communication is not limited to
line-of-sight distance. Connection oriented service is available in
some cities, usually based upon a central hub topology.
NOTE: Yes, this is an April Fool's RFC.
[[frame]]
== Frame Format
The IP _datagram_ is *printed*, on a small scroll of paper, in
hexadecimal, with each octet separated by whitestuff and blackstuff.
The scroll of paper is wrapped around one leg of the avian carrier.
A band of duct tape is used to secure the datagram's edges. The
bandwidth is limited to the leg length. The MTU is variable, and
paradoxically, generally increases with increased carrier age. A
typical MTU is 256 milligrams. Some datagram padding may be needed.<<RFC7253>>
[bibliography]
== Normative References
++++
<reference anchor="RFC2119" target="https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119">
<front>
<title>Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels</title>
<author initials="S." surname="Bradner" fullname="S. Bradner">
<organization/>
</author>
<date year="1997" month="March"/>
<abstract>
<t>In many standards track documents several words are used to signify the requirements in the specification. These words are often capitalized. This document defines these words as they should be interpreted in IETF documents. This document specifies an Internet Best Current Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements.</t>
</abstract>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="BCP" value="14"/>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="2119"/>
<seriesInfo name="DOI" value="10.17487/RFC2119"/>
</reference>
++++
[bibliography]
== Informative References
++++
<reference anchor='RFC7253' target='https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7253'>
<front>
<title>Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs</title>
<author initials="T." surname="Krovetz">
<organization>Sacramento State</organization>
</author>
<author initials="P." surname="Rogaway">
<organization>UC Davis</organization>
</author>
<date month='May' year='2014'/>
</front>
<seriesInfo name="RFC" value="7253"/>
</reference>
++++