Am Apr 6, 2013 um 8:52 schrieb Hector Santos <hsantos@xxxxxxxx>: > Hi Abdusalam, > > You should consider all APRIL 1 published I-D as "SPAM" and the electronic mail follow ups generated in the IETF list as more wasted bandwidth, time and spam. We have too much time in our hands, boredom for many, and even more wasted time if we spend time reading it - so in that regard I agree with your concerns. Who has time for all this? Its already a challenge to decipher most of the postings and wondering if one is serious or not. Ignore April 1 publications. :) > It's called humor and fun; look it up. > -- > HLS > > > On 4/6/2013 9:03 AM, Abdussalam Baryun 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 >> >>