I have spoke with the RFC editor team today, and I think I was misunderstood. The issue is not that we stop that type of RFC but the issue is to make it clear by category for users and customers. You are right it is important for IETF participants to get use to it but what about international customers (they are not part of IETF). My concern is customers or new users. Comment below,
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The draft should consider reader styles then present author styles and then RFC best practice style. I don't think the funny RFC is a best practice style.
In a different thread you made some claims about the reason IETF attendance dropped off after 2000-2002.
The answer to that drop between 2000-2002 was that most attendance were not participants because they were users or customers. My analysis and assumptions considered that the period was larger than 2 years. So we may lost users or new possible participants, and remain constant with participants for longer.
I think if the IETF and the RFC Editor function were compelled to become so rigid that we can no longer safely reminisce or laugh at ourselves in sometimes visible ways, you'll see it drop again.
The suggestion was not to stop laughs between colleagues but to change the product you deliver. Don't laugh about your users but those RFCs style can be an internal tool to laugh with your colleagues, not customers. I distinguish between participants and users/customers, that read any IETF RFC. I consider competing with other SDOs, but this April RFC may not consider any competition and I don't think that ITU does that April fool production.
I think it's fine that some people aren't in on the joke. Getting there is a form of education; if you do the work to understand the joke, you'll be better off, and then you can laugh with us.
I do laugh with IETF participants, but I don't use our product/service to laugh on my international customers that need such product/service. I want the IETF business to expand more international, but some volunteers may not understand to make better future for their organisation, and the best future for IETF products.
In any case, I agree with SM's point that this has little if anything to do with the style guide.
The style is for a purpose, to help all participants, users, and customers. It seems only IETF participants get one style type.
I think I am done with this issue, I will leave it for future.
AB