There's a basic principle at stake: don't lie and don't mislead, either directly, indirectly, or through omission. We make an exception for April 1 RFCs, which may do all three. Eliot On 5/30/15 5:14 PM, David Farmer wrote: >> On May 30, 2015, at 01:48, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> I like this draft, but I suggest that it apply to ALL RFCs (not just the >> IETF stream). >> >> Eliot >> > Sorry but I disagree. Not ALL RFCs, to exemplify why, I think the use of a humorous nom de plume or a sarcastic acknowledgement would be perfectly legitimate for RFCs published on a particular day in the spring. > > Authorship, contribution, and acknowledgement are serious and important issues, but that is no reason to completely abandon or exclude humor and sarcasm in appropriate doses. >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature