|
The most important comment for me as start message is that the 1st April RFC should be categorised different than IETF standards. IMHO, The past RFC style is not a reasonable style of the world or the future best practices. In considering our standards
business and our documents reputation, we should not make jokes with our followers only if we are sure all like such jokes.
I don't want to stop that Style type, but it should be easily discriminated by readers/users from other real work/business.
WG] Please explain how the combination of the publish date, the doc status (usually info or experimental) plus this boilerplate (below) isn’t enough to distinguish this from standards?
"Status of This Memo
This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value for implementation or deployment. Documents approved for publication by the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741." I’d tell you a UDP joke, but you probably won’t get it…
Wes George
Anything below this line has been added by my company’s mail server, I have no control over it.
----------- This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout. |