Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first
From: Lucy Lynch <llynch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 10:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: ietf <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <9515564336C5B442A00021645539CFCC28A1403D@xmb-rcd-x08.cisco.com>
User-agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:

If the date is special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*.


I thought they should be classified as "hysterical".


there is an echo (echo) ((echo) ) in here (here) ((here))

- Wes

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first
  - From: Scott Brim

References:
- Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first
  - From: Wes Beebee (wbeebee)

Prev by Date: Re: On the tradition of I-D "Acknowledgements" sections
Next by Date: Re: draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01
Previous by thread: Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first
Next by thread: Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [IETF Annoucements] [IETF] [IP Storage] [Yosemite News] [Linux SCTP] [Linux Newbies] [Fedora Users]