The message below suggests you still think that every RFC is published by the IETF.
It's not, and this one explicitly nuts that it is not an IETF RFC at the top.
On 6 Apr 2013 18:35, "Abdussalam Baryun" <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
>>
>>
>
>