On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:03 AM, 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). > -very, very, very lots. I understand you may have missed the fact that an RFC was an April 1st, and are grumpy now, but that's no reason to ruin things for the rest of us... Try hacking protocol, not policy -- then folk may listen more to your proposals on things. W > 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 >