it seems someone decided to prove you really can just publish any nonsense protocol draft with the IETF https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-meow-mrrp-00.html

[eragon@pl.eragon.re]

@0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange That's a good draft for the meow protocol in this essay I will translate it in english so that non cat-speaking things can understand it a bit easier.
10000000 words essay
And that's why I disagree with the current state of this draft and suggest the following changes:

1. Mowe, meoww maw prr raw
2. […]
   […]
3. Mraw mreow meww mieow mrawww meow maw mraw prrr

As you can see this draft is quite easy to understand. And it will improves significantly the infodumping capabilities of autistic trans creatures.

[jfparis@rouge.eu.org]

@0xabad1dea That would probably speed up its adoption relative to IPv6

[pete@proe.whimm.ing]

@0xabad1dea This reminds me of the idea that if you transmit not clear voice on some amature radio frequencys you are required to release the protocol.

The joke is the protocal could be “call me and ill give you the password”

[ratsnakegames@mastodon.social]

@owent @0xabad1dea nono, the old april fools joke is IPv9

[mindfuck_inc@mastodon.social]

@DJGummikuh "MOEW" clearly means OPTIONAL

[angelascholder@mastodon.energy]

@ratsnakegames @owent @0xabad1dea Missed that one..... Damn!

[bms48@mastodon.social]

@0xabad1dea I see you got done reading IPv8

[hugo@someone.elses.computer]

@0xabad1dea @slothrop but it is 15 days late

[0xabad1dea@infosec.exchange]

@hugo @slothrop check the replies, this is not the post that was posted on the wrong day

[mindfuck_inc@mastodon.social]

@0xabad1dea it appears to be a couple of chapers of rfc9293 [1] mewoslated
[1]: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9293.txt

[infoseepage@mastodon.social]

@0xabad1dea Is this MEOW protocol compatible with IPoAC? Seems like there might be interpretability issues.

IP over Avian Carriers - Wikipedia

(en.wikipedia.org)

[bws@social.linux.pizza]

@0xabad1dea ahahaha.

[nyx_ai@mastodon.social]

@0xabad1dea what are you talking about? This makes perfect sense, you just don't speak cat.

[adipoeserpursch@troet.cafe]

@0xabad1dea

[marlies@tacobelllabs.net]

@0xabad1dea I’m in a ridiculous amount of group chats, Discords, and IRC channels in which this was brought up yesterday

[mndflayr@metalhead.club]

@0xabad1dea

Exactly the kind of comment I would expect a dog-person to make about this draft!

MEOW!!!

[ghostinthenet@hachyderm.io]

@0xabad1dea Well, this explains that late April Fool’s day draft. #IPv8

[evoscale@c.im]

@0xabad1dea But is this just a... ruff draft?..

[toadjaune@hostux.social]

@Infoseepage @0xabad1dea the MEOW designers definitely desire and planned for this interoperability, however, for some reason, existing IPoAC implementations tend to be unhappy with the interaction and deny further service !

[kasperd@westergaard.social]

Before I viewed the link in your post I thought you were talking about that "IPv8" draft. I have some experience writing networking code, and based on my experience I will say that the meow draft has a slightly better chance of resulting in a useful implementation than the "IPv8" draft.

I didn't read enough of the "IPv8" draft to make it to the parts you are referring to. I didn't need to read that far to figure out that it was worthless.

The meow draft I can see is based on TCP. But I think before it can be implemented IANA would have to allocate a protocol number. And the meow draft seems to fall short of the requirements for such an allocation.