|
Changed subject line to avoid further polluting the thread about the style guide, since this has little to do with it.
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx>
I don't think the funny RFC is a best practice style.
WG] you’re correct, the April Fools RFCs are not BCPs, or standards. No one implied otherwise.
One of the important issue of document styles, is the each style purpose or benefit to all readers. Documents are for readers and mostly new readers. RFCs should consider new readers, especially the funny RFCs (in some cultures they may not think that
style is funny).
WG] I support the idea of avoiding humor that might be offensive to some readers, but I’m unaware of anyone offended by the extremely nerdy but IMO otherwise innocuous humor in an April Fools RFC. I’ll echo comments made earlier, I want no part in a humorless
IETF that is so Serious and Busy Doing Very Important Things that it can’t make fun of itself. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_relief]
In fact, many people who are not active in IETF but familiar with the subject matter discussed do read and enjoy the humor RFCs.
IMHO , The RFC editor output general style should change to welcome/match more reader styles. Authors should not do documents without clarifying purpose of their writing style. Furthermore, editors should motivate their document to easy readings to understanding.
WG] I do agree that the RFC format could use some work to modernize it, but the style guide being discussed by this draft is for current RFCs and their syntax/format, not their technical content or category. A more significant format change for future
RFCs is being tracked in RFC6949, and I think it’s fair to say that making documents (visually) easier to read via support for more non-canonical formats is a goal.
However, as is becoming a theme, the information clarifying the purpose is there (in the boilerplate and the doc status) but you’ve chosen not to use it, and then expect us to make changes to compensate for that.
The special RFCs are not part of the IETF Stream and they are not an IETF standard in any way. You need to tell all possible readers that,
WG] again, we do. See my previous message for an example.
or IETF should work hard to make media know about its special RFC.
WG] I don’t know about letting the media know, but often the documents do get coverage on tech blogs that track the different April Fools jokes put out by internet companies like Google, Facebook, and others, as April Fools day has been embraced more and more
as the Internet’s holiday. There’s even a dead tree edition: http://www.amazon.com/The-Complete-April-Fools-RFCs/dp/1573980420 And a wikipedia article… and >35 years' history of
producing them…
I agree that some of these RFCs might be difficult for some readers to understand. That is good, so those docs are not making things easy to readers but making it easy to others to joke or make fun or waste time. Some Readers may not have time for jokes like the author or editor have. The doc style affect the time and benefit of reader/writer.
WG] <sarcasm> I apologize on behalf of all of the amateur humorists that have penned or are considering penning IETF April Fools drafts for wasting your time. We’ll use TCP next time to make sure you get the joke. </sarcasm>
On a more serious note, learning to quickly parse IETF documents to determine whether a given draft is “signal” or “noise” (i.e. Relevant to them and their area of expertise vs not) is a vital tool for participants to learn if they are to avoid having their
time wasted. Not all IETF documents are useful for all readers (even within a given WG) nor should they be, given IETF’s wide range of participants and focus areas.
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. |