The Mark Crispin RFC was not categorised as informational nor experimental, so I was not against that old work that had few readers, the problem is now new work and millions of readers, AB On 4/6/13, Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 >> >