V.E.R.A. -- Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms (February 2016):

RFC
       Remote Function Call (SAP, CPIC)


V.E.R.A. -- Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms (February 2016):

RFC
       Request For Change (PERL, ITIL)


V.E.R.A. -- Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms (February 2016):

RFC
       Request For Comments (Internet, RFC)


The Jargon File (version 4.4.7, 29 Dec 2003):

RFC
 /R?F?C/, n.

    [Request For Comment] One of a long-es?tab?lished series of numbered
    Internet informational documents and standards widely followed by
    commercial software and freeware in the Internet and Unix communities.
    Perhaps the single most influential one has been RFC-822 (the Internet
    mail-format standard). The RFCs are unusual in that they are floated by
    technical experts acting on their own initiative and reviewed by the
    Internet at large, rather than formally promulgated through an institution
    such as ANSI. For this reason, they remain known as RFCs even once adopted
    as standards.

    The RFC tradition of pragmatic, experience-driven, after-the-fact standard
    writing done by individuals or small working groups has important
    advantages over the more formal, committee-driven process typical of ANSI
    or ISO. Emblematic of some of these advantages is the existence of a
    flourishing tradition of ?joke? RFCs; usually at least one a year is
    published, usually on April 1st. Well-known joke RFCs have included 527 (?
    ARPAWOCKY?, R. Merryman, UCSD; 22 June 1973), 748 (?Telnet Randomly-Lose
    Option?, Mark R. Crispin; 1 April 1978), and 1149 (?A Standard for the
    Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers?, D. Waitzman, BBN STC; 1
    April 1990). The first was a Lewis Carroll pastiche; the second a parody of
    the TCP-IP documentation style, and the third a deadpan skewering of
    standards-document legalese, describing protocols for transmitting Internet
    data packets by carrier pigeon (since actually implemented; see Appendix
    A). See also Infinite-Monkey Theorem.

    The RFCs are most remarkable for how well they work ? they frequently
    manage to have neither the ambiguities that are usually rife in informal
    specifications, nor the committee-perpetrated misfeatures that often haunt
    formal standards, and they define a network that has grown to truly
    worldwide proportions.


The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (30 December 2018):

Request For Comments
RFC

    (RFC) One of a series, begun in 1969, of numbered
   Internet informational documents and standards widely
   followed by commercial software and freeware in the
   Internet and Unix communities.  Few RFCs are standards but
   all Internet standards are recorded in RFCs.  Perhaps the
   single most influential RFC has been RFC 822, the Internet
   electronic mail format standard.

   The RFCs are unusual in that they are floated by technical
   experts acting on their own initiative and reviewed by the
   Internet at large, rather than formally promulgated through an
   institution such as ANSI.  For this reason, they remain
   known as RFCs even once adopted as standards.

   The RFC tradition of pragmatic, experience-driven,
   after-the-fact standard writing done by individuals or small
   working groups has important advantages over the more formal,
   committee-driven process typical of ANSI or ISO.

   Emblematic of some of these advantages is the existence of a
   flourishing tradition of "joke" RFCs; usually at least one a
   year is published, usually on April 1st.  Well-known joke RFCs
   have included 527 ("ARPAWOCKY", R. Merryman, UCSD; 22 June
   1973), 748 ("Telnet Randomly-Lose Option", Mark R. Crispin; 1
   April 1978), and 1149 ("A Standard for the Transmission of IP
   Datagrams on Avian Carriers", D. Waitzman, BBN STC; 1 April
   1990).  The first was a Lewis Carroll pastiche; the second a
   parody of the TCP/IP documentation style, and the third a
   deadpan skewering of standards-document legalese, describing
   protocols for transmitting Internet data packets by carrier
   pigeon.

   The RFCs are most remarkable for how well they work - they
   manage to have neither the ambiguities that are usually rife
   in informal specifications, nor the committee-perpetrated
   misfeatures that often haunt formal standards, and they
   define a network that has grown to truly worldwide
   proportions.

   rfc.net (http://rfc.net/).
   W3
   (http://w3.org/hypertext/DataSources/Archives/RFC_sites.html).
   JANET UK FTP (ftp://nic.ja.net/pub/newsfiles/JIPS/rfc).
   Imperial College, UK FTP (ftp://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/).
   Nexor UK (http://nexor.com/public/rfc/index/rfc.html).
   Ohio State U
   (http://cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html).

   See also For Your Information, STD.

   (1997-11-10)