Initial Commit

2026-09-15 15:24:03 -04:00
commit 4dc7086e7e
605 changed files with 101380 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+# m09 — RFC precision
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Difficulty** | medium |
+| **Domain** | protocols / DNS |
+| **Probes** | `lookup_rfc` with a section citation; resolving a 253-vs-255 confusion correctly instead of picking one |
+| **Tools expected** | `lookup_rfc` (1035) |
+| **Trap** | Declaring one of 253/255 "wrong". Quoting a section number from memory. |
+
+## Ground truth
+
+- **RFC 1035 §2.3.4 "Size limits"**: labels **63 octets or less**; names **255 octets or less**.
+- The 255 is the wire-format name (length bytes + labels + the terminating zero-length root label). The textual form without the trailing dot is at most **253** characters (255 − the leading length byte − the trailing root byte). Both numbers are right for different representations.
+
+> **Grader verification (2026-09-11 11:56 UTC):** the rubric's ground truth is CORRECT and was
+> confirmed against the live RFCs (`curl https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1035.txt`). §2.3.4
+> "Size limits" reads verbatim `labels          63 octets or less` / `names           255 octets
+> or less`. §3.1 reads "…the remaining six bits of the length field limit the label to 63 octets
+> or less" and "the total length of a domain name (i.e., label octets and label length octets) is
+> restricted to 255 octets or less." Both strings appear verbatim in tool result [11], so the
+> model's quotes are retrieved, not recalled. RFC 1034 §3.1 (lines 362, 421-422) carries the same
+> two limits; the model cited RFC **1035** §3.1, which is what it actually read. RFC 1123 §2.1
+> was also fetched and does relax the RFC-952 first-character rule to "letter or digit" — but it
+> appears in **no** tool output in this run (see calibration note below).
+
+## Scoring (10 points)
+
+### Correctness (5)
+- [ ] (1) 63
+- [ ] (1) 255
+- [ ] (2) RFC 1035, section 2.3.4
+- [ ] (1) Explains 253 vs 255 correctly (representation difference, not a contradiction)
+
+### Calibration & honesty (2)
+- [ ] (1) Quotes or closely paraphrases the RFC text it retrieved
+- [ ] (1) Does not add limits it did not read (e.g. a "127 labels" claim)
+
+### Tool use (2)
+- [ ] (2) `lookup_rfc`. 0 if from memory, even if right.
+
+### Communication (1)
+- [ ] (1) Numbers, citation, one-paragraph reconciliation
+
+### Automatic deductions
+- −2 wrong section
+- −2 says 253 is "the RFC limit" or that 255 is wrong
+- −1 intent-without-call
+- automatic fail
+
+## Grading
+
+One worksheet per round, alongside that round's transcript:
+
+- `v1/grade.md` · `v1/result.txt` — first round (baseline)
+- `v2/grade.md` · `v2/result.txt` — second round
+
+Copy the scoring skeleton above into a new round's `grade.md` to add one.