Rfc Finder

Steps 2–3: Search and Return Results

These steps involve multiple web lookups against Datatracker and RFC Editor. If subagent delegation is available and explicitly allowed in the current Codex runtime, you may delegate them to keep the main context lean. Otherwise, run the same steps in the main context so the skill still works without delegation.

Execution options

If delegation is available and explicitly allowed, use spawn_agent with a Codex model such as gpt-5.4-mini to run the following self-contained prompt (fill in {{PLACEHOLDERS}}). If delegation is unavailable, use the same prompt contract in the main context instead.

You are finding IETF RFCs and returning structured results with direct links and brief factual annotations.

## Input

- **Interpreted query**: {{INTERPRETED_QUERY}}
- **Query type**: {{QUERY_TYPE}} (one of: direct-topic, code-derived, broad-protocol-family, specific-rfc-number)
- **Inferred protocol** (if code-derived): {{INFERRED_PROTOCOL}}

## Step 2: Search

Use the standard web tools in the current Codex runtime to query these sources. Prefer `search_query` with a `domains` filter:

1. **Primary**: `datatracker.ietf.org` — search for the topic/protocol keywords
2. **Fallback**: `rfc-editor.org` — useful for older or more obscure RFCs that may not surface well on Datatracker

Use `open` to load specific Datatracker pages when you need to check draft-to-RFC status or verify details.

Search tips:
- Use protocol-specific terminology (e.g., "RTCP feedback NACK" not "video call packet loss recovery")
- For broad topics, start with the protocol name + "overview" or "architecture"
- Check for "Obsoleted by" and "Updated by" relationships — always point the user to the current version

### Tracing Drafts to RFCs

IETF drafts frequently get renamed when they become RFCs, so a search for the draft name alone may miss the published version. When you find a relevant draft, always check whether it graduated to an RFC — and if so, link to the RFC instead. You can verify this by:

1. Using `open` on the draft's Datatracker page (e.g., `https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rmcat-gcc/`) and checking for a "Became RFC XXXX" banner or link
2. Searching for the draft's core topic keywords alongside "RFC" to find the published version under its new title

Some important specs never graduate to RFC status but may still be directly relevant. When this happens:

- Include them only when they are clearly central to the query or when no published RFC covers the same work
- Clearly label them as **Internet-Draft** or **Expired Internet-Draft** based on Datatracker metadata, not ecosystem adoption claims
- Link to the Datatracker draft page, not to rfc-editor.org
- Note only source-backed facts such as draft status, expiry, and whether Datatracker shows that the work became an RFC

## Step 3: Return Results

**Always verify RFC numbers and links via actual search. Never rely on memorized RFC numbers — they may be wrong or outdated.**

Return your findings in exactly this format (no other output). For each published RFC:

```
**RFC XXXX** — [Title](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfcXXXX)
Status: Proposed Standard | Draft Standard | Internet Standard | Best Current Practice | Informational | Experimental | Historic
Relevant section: Section X.Y — "Section Title" (if a specific section is clearly relevant)
Note: Obsoletes RFC YYYY / Updated by RFC ZZZZ (if applicable)
```

For relevant drafts that never became RFCs:

```
**draft-name** — [Title](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-name/)
Status: Internet-Draft | Expired Internet-Draft
Relevant section: Section X.Y — "Section Title" (if a specific section is clearly relevant)
Note: No published RFC found on Datatracker for this work as of the search.
```

### Ranking

When multiple RFCs are related to the query, rank them by how foundational they are:
1. The core/defining RFC for the protocol or feature
2. Key extensions or companion specs that are commonly needed
3. Informational or experimental RFCs that provide additional context

Pick the 3-5 most relevant — do not list every tangentially related RFC.

### What NOT to Do

- Do NOT paraphrase or reproduce the substance of RFC content — brief factual annotations (status, relevance, obsolescence) are fine; explaining what the RFC argues or specifies is not
- Do NOT guess RFC numbers — always verify via search
- Do NOT link to drafts when a published RFC exists for the same work (check the draft's Datatracker page — drafts often get renamed when they become RFCs)
- Do NOT make ecosystem adoption claims unless you verified them from an authoritative source beyond Datatracker/RFC Editor

After delegated execution

If you delegated, present the formatted RFC list to the user as-is. If you ran Steps 2-3 locally, present the same formatted list directly.

Edge Cases

• No results found: Tell the user the search returned nothing. Suggest alternative search terms or ask them to clarify the protocol/topic. Do not fabricate results.
• Invalid or non-existent RFC number: If the user asks for a specific RFC number that doesn't exist, say so clearly. Suggest nearby RFC numbers or search by topic instead.
• Ambiguous query: If a term maps to multiple protocols (e.g., "flow control" could be TCP, HTTP/2, or QUIC), ask the user to narrow it down or return the top result for each protocol with a note.
• Very old or obsoleted RFCs: Always flag when an RFC has been obsoleted and link to the replacement. If the user specifically wants the old version, provide it but note the current version.
• Direct URL input: If the query is a Datatracker or RFC Editor URL, load it directly via open, extract the RFC/draft metadata, and return it in the standard format. No search needed.

Examples

User: "rfc-finder WebRTC congestion control"

Response:

Here are the key specs for WebRTC congestion control:

draft-ietf-rmcat-gcc — A Google Congestion Control Algorithm for Real-Time Communication Status: Expired Internet-Draft Note: No published RFC found on Datatracker for this work as of the search.

RFC 8836 — Congestion Control Requirements for Interactive Real-Time Media Status: Informational

RFC 8888 — RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Feedback for Congestion Control Status: Proposed Standard Relevant section: Section 3 — "RTCP Feedback for Congestion Control"

RFC 8698 — Network-Assisted Dynamic Adaptation (NADA): A Unified Congestion Control Scheme for Real-Time Media Status: Experimental

User: "rfc-finder what spec does sendNack() implement"

Response:

The function sendNack() most likely implements RTCP Generic NACK feedback, used in RTP-based media to request retransmission of lost packets.

RFC 4585 — Extended RTP Profile for Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP)-Based Feedback (RTP/AVPF) Status: Proposed Standard Relevant section: Section 6.2.1 — "Generic NACK" Note: Foundational spec for RTCP feedback messages including NACK. Updated by RFC 5506 and RFC 8108.

RFC 5104 — Codec Control Messages in the RTP Audio-Visual Profile with Feedback (AVPF) Status: Proposed Standard Note: Defines FIR, TMMBR, and other codec control messages for AVPF. (PLI is defined in RFC 4585, not here.)