How to Write a Technical RFC in English
Learn how to write a clear, persuasive Request for Comments (RFC) in English — structure, tone, key phrases, and common pitfalls for senior developers.
A Request for Comments (RFC) is one of the most powerful documents a software engineer can write. It is how individual contributors influence architecture, propose changes to core systems, and build consensus across teams. Writing an RFC in English — especially when English is not your first language — requires mastering not just technical clarity, but also the tone of collaborative persuasion.
This guide walks you through the structure of a strong RFC, the English phrases that make each section work, and the stylistic choices that separate proposals that get adopted from those that quietly die in a shared drive.
What Is an RFC?
An RFC (Request for Comments) is a structured document used in engineering organisations to propose significant changes, new systems, or architectural decisions. Unlike a ticket or a chat message, an RFC is designed to be read carefully, debated, and ultimately accepted or rejected with a recorded rationale.
RFCs exist at companies like Google (Design Docs), Amazon (1-Pagers and 6-Pagers), Rust (the official RFC process), and countless startups that have adopted the pattern informally. The name matters less than the idea: write it down, share it, iterate.
Structure of a Strong RFC
1. Title and Metadata
Your title should be specific and action-oriented. Avoid vague titles like “Database Improvements.” Prefer:
- “Replace Redis Session Store with DynamoDB for Multi-Region Failover”
- “Introduce Rate Limiting Middleware Across All Public API Endpoints”
Include metadata: Author, Status (Draft / In Review / Accepted / Rejected), Created, Last Updated, and Stakeholders.
2. Summary (TL;DR)
Open with a one-to-three-sentence summary that states the problem and the proposed solution. Engineers are busy. If your first paragraph does not hook them, they will not read further.
Key phrases for the summary:
- “This document proposes…”
- “We currently face the problem of… This RFC recommends…”
- “The goal of this proposal is to… by…”
Example: “This RFC proposes migrating our background job processing from Sidekiq to Temporal to improve observability and support long-running workflow orchestration. The current setup lacks durable execution semantics, leading to data inconsistencies during failures.”
3. Problem Statement
This is the most critical section. You must make readers feel the pain before they will consider any cure.
Key phrases:
- “The current approach suffers from…”
- “This becomes a bottleneck when…”
- “Under load testing, we observed that…”
- “The root cause is…”
- “This results in…, which directly impacts…”
Be specific. Include numbers, incident references, or links to monitoring dashboards. “The service occasionally times out” is weak. “The p99 latency for this endpoint exceeds 2,000 ms under peak load, as evidenced by three production incidents in Q1 (INC-441, INC-512, INC-589)” is strong.
4. Proposed Solution
Describe what you are recommending. Use diagrams where possible. Walk readers through the change as if explaining it to a smart colleague who has not seen your design yet.
Key phrases:
- “The proposed solution introduces…”
- “At a high level, the architecture works as follows:…”
- “This approach differs from the current system in three key ways:…”
- “The migration will proceed in two phases:…“
5. Alternatives Considered
Skipping this section is the most common RFC mistake. If you do not acknowledge alternatives, readers will raise them in comments, and you will look as though you did not think the problem through.
Key phrases:
- “We evaluated three approaches before settling on this recommendation.”
- “Option A was rejected because…”
- “Option B is viable but introduces additional operational complexity that outweighs the benefits at our current scale.”
- “We considered doing nothing. The cost of inaction is…“
6. Impact and Risks
Be honest about risks. An RFC that pretends there are no downsides destroys trust.
Key phrases:
- “The primary risk is… which we will mitigate by…”
- “This change requires a coordinated rollout across… teams.”
- “Rollback is straightforward: we can revert to the previous configuration by…”
- “Performance impact is expected to be negligible, based on our benchmarks (see Appendix A).“
7. Open Questions
List what you do not yet know. This signals intellectual honesty and invites focused feedback.
- “Should we apply rate limits globally or per-tenant?”
- “Is there a preference for feature flags at the API gateway level or within the service itself?”
Tone and Style
RFCs should be direct but collaborative. Avoid passive-aggressive hedging (“obviously, the current system is terrible”) and avoid over-qualifying every claim (“perhaps it might be possible that we could consider…”). Aim for confident and collegial.
Use the first-person plural (“we recommend,” “our analysis shows”) rather than the impersonal passive (“it is recommended that”). The plural creates a sense of shared ownership.
Key Vocabulary
- Rationale — the reasons behind a decision
- Trade-off — accepting one disadvantage in exchange for a benefit
- Scope — the boundaries of what the RFC covers
- Stakeholder — a person or team affected by the decision
- Consensus — broad agreement among reviewers
- Rollback plan — a defined way to undo the change if it fails
- Durable execution — processing that survives crashes and retries safely
- Observability — the ability to monitor and understand system behaviour
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Too much jargon without explanation. Your RFC may be read by engineers outside your immediate team. Define acronyms on first use.
No concrete metrics. Proposals without data are opinions. Support every claim with numbers.
Burying the conclusion. Put your recommendation early. This is technical writing, not a mystery novel.
Neglecting the “why now.” If this problem existed for two years, explain what has changed that makes it urgent to solve today.
A well-crafted RFC in clear English is a career accelerator. It demonstrates systems thinking, communication skill, and leadership — all without a formal management title. Start writing.