These aren't published by the IETF, but by the RFC editor directly. As such, the IETF has little control.
Even if this were not so, I would be very much against discontinuing or specially marking such documents. I appreciate Mark Crispin was always proud that his randomly lose telnet extension was marked 'note date of issue', but that should remain the only one.
Humour is an important part of IETF culture, and long may it remain so. Actively working to remove support for humour would be a very bad thing, and marking it joylessly would drain it of any value.
On 6 Apr 2013 14:03, "Abdussalam Baryun" <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<Unclassified Message, but not Humorous>
Some participants like to send messages/documents as categoried or
classified, and may include in others uncategorised or unclassified.
That is a reasonable approach in reasonable organisations.
I see some RFCs as mentioned in [1], that they are humorous that
reflect a historic culture or a behavior that some may like to do in a
certain date (others may not like to do or be part of). If the date is
special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*.
I suggest/request that the IETF stops this humorous RFC publication or
try to categories them or distinguish them from our logical
work/efforts. I request if they are categorised as informational or
experimental then to be obsoleted. I recommend for future RFCs of that
type categories to be as *historical* not others (i.e. informational).
If those RFCs are not categorising/distinguished as unclassified or
humorous, then all RFC may be affected. The reader may not be able to
distinguish thoes published documents by IETF (does an organisation
care about readers or users of its publications!). You may think to
create a new category name for such publication published on April for
that interested culture behavior.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_RFC
Regards
AB