Hi Hector, When I read the RFC on 1 April 2013 (my first time experience) I noticed something is wrong (with the system or with doc-content), but the document does not refer to any joke. As if you receive a message from someone you know, but you realise that you don't know why he/she sending it. If it is the IETF culture, is this culture defined in any RFC or draft? However, don't mind culture/fun but mind its relation to classifications. My comments in line, On 4/6/13, Hector Santos <hsantos@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. the question is not that I SHOULD consider importance for the published date, my question is : Does the IETF as an organisation consider Content of its publications? is there something in IETF as reference refering to such happy activity!!!, I am not sure. If yes there is a reference then why the management forgot to categorise the RFC as different from the serious work, do they just rely on the date 1 April. > 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. :) I never ignore any message/RFC I receive from IETF, IMO the IETF SHOULD consider to categorise its messages sent or documents published as any other publishers do for readers. However, I will follow your advise, but just like to comment about any faulty RFC because it is in the end a Request For Comment (RFC). If the documents are calling/requesting a comment that was my reply/comment as a reader, <Just done my job and commented don't care if things change or not> AB > > -- > 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 >> >> > >