--On Thursday, June 28, 2018 18:33 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Just in case Lloyd missed the most obvious unwritten rule, > I-Ds intended to be April 1st RFCs are *never* posted as I-Ds. > > (Actually, that might even be a written rule.) > > Another important unwritten rule is: start early. Great ideas > invented in mid-March rarely make it through the unwritten > process. Brian, I'd argue that another unwritten rule, and part of the point I was trying to make, was that the RFC Editor can make exceptions to the rules when that is appropriate. That has always been true of many editorial rule (written and unwritten) as well as to the rules affecting April 1 RFCs. I wouldn't dream of trying to micormanage the RFC Editor by committee, but I would think such an exception might be appropriate in the case of the document I suggested Lloyd should write, especially if he can get an I-D posted now to make it not only a very early (as you suggest) candidate for next April but a useful contribution to the current discussion about changes to the RFC Series. Because the April 1 documents are usually considered part of the Series but not part of any particular stream, it is not clear how the proposed changes would affect them. I do suggest that giving them separate names and numbers would vastly weaken their effects (I note that the "avian carrier" documents have sometimes been mistaken for Internet Standards too). best, john On 28/06/2018 17:32, John C Klensin wrote: > --On Thursday, June 28, 2018 01:39 +0000 Lloyd Wood > <eclipticplane2002=40yahoo.co.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> on a related note, we need an established April Fools >> workgroup with a published charter and clear path for draft >> adoption and RFC publication. >> jokes are funnier once they've been workshopped... > > Lloyd, I disagree. I think most jokes, especially the sort of > complex ones that have tended to appear in the April 1 subseries > of the RFC Series, are funnier if they come as a surprise and > have not first been tuned and kicked into submission if not to > death. > > However, I suggest an experiment. Why don't you write and > propose an April 1 RFC that describes, in detail, what you think > the vetting and evaluation process for those RFCs should be. > For example, perhaps there should be a committee with members > chosen by the Nomcom, the IAB, the IESG, the Board of the new > IASA LLC, and, if they can reach consensus, a committee of five > religious leaders from as many different religions chosen by the > IAB Chair and the G7 (with or without Russia)? I would presume > that such a document would also describe, in detail, the limits > of political correctness or incorrectness allowed in such RFCs > and whether puns or other wordplay that depend on languages > other than English are acceptable and under what conditions. > > best, > john
