If we read each document in the world we know the answer; who owns the copyright for these documents? so only owner can update it or to change category name as per proposed, AB On 4/6/13, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Indeed. The wikipedia entry is somewhat misleading though: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_RFC > > "Almost every April Fools' Day (1 April) since 1989, the Internet > Engineering Task Force has published one or more humorous Request for > Comments (RFC) documents," > > and then > > "The IETF accepts submission of properly formatted April Fools' Day > RFCs from the general public, and considers them for publication in > the same year if received at least two weeks prior to April > 1st.[2][3]" > > Ulrich > > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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 >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >