Subject: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 15:03:23 +0200

<Unclassified Message, but not Humorous>

Some participants like to send messages/documents as categoried or
classified, and may include in others uncategorised or unclassified.
That is a reasonable approach in reasonable organisations.

I see some RFCs as mentioned in [1], that they are humorous that
reflect a historic culture or a behavior that some may like to do in a
certain date (others may not like to do or be part of). If the date is
special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*.

I suggest/request that the IETF stops this humorous RFC publication or
try to categories them or distinguish them from our logical
work/efforts. I request if they are categorised as informational or
experimental then to be obsoleted. I recommend for future RFCs of that
type categories to be as *historical* not others (i.e. informational).

 If those RFCs are not categorising/distinguished as unclassified or
humorous, then all RFC may be affected. The reader may not be able to
distinguish thoes published documents by IETF (does an organisation
care about readers or users of its publications!). You may think to
create a new category name for such publication published on April for
that interested culture behavior.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_RFC

Regards
AB

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 15:08:18 +0100

These aren't published by the IETF, but by the RFC editor directly. As
such, the IETF has little control.

Even if this were not so, I would be very much against discontinuing or
specially marking such documents. I appreciate Mark Crispin was always
proud that his randomly lose telnet extension was marked 'note date of
issue', but that should remain the only one.

Humour is an important part of IETF culture, and long may it remain so.
Actively working to remove support for humour would be a very bad thing,
and marking it joylessly would drain it of any value.

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 10:26:21 -0400

> type categories to be as *historical* not others (i.e. informational).

-very, very, very lots.

I understand you may have missed the fact that an RFC was an April 1st, and are grumpy now, but that's no reason to ruin things for the rest of us...

Try hacking protocol, not policy -- then folk may listen more to your proposals on things.

W

---

From: "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 15:39:49 +0000

Sent from my iPad

On 6 Apr 2013, at 14:04, "Abdussalam Baryun" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If the date is

Surely the correct requirement is :

If the date is special then those RFCs MUST be *hysterical*.

- Stewart

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 11:52:14 -0400

Hi Abdusalam,

You should consider all APRIL 1 published I-D as "SPAM" and the 
electronic mail follow ups generated in the IETF list as more wasted 
bandwidth, time and spam.   We have too much time in our hands, boredom 
for many, and even more wasted time if we spend time reading it - so in 
that regard I agree with your concerns.  Who has time for all this?  Its 
already a challenge to decipher most of the postings and wondering if 
one is serious or not. Ignore April 1 publications. :)

--
HLS

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 11:57:32 -0400

> one is serious or not. Ignore April 1 publications. :)

It's called having a shared culture.  The IETF could even generate
friendship, if allowed.

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 10:02:30 -0700 (PDT)

> It's called having a shared culture.  The IETF could even generate

The most effective way to join a well established group is to lurk long
enough to understand the social structure and operational norms of the
group before demanding that the group change to your norms. We don't need
to become a dour boring group to meet the diversity goals discussed in
other threads.

It is also about reading and understanding before responding in public.
Part of the fun of the April 1 RFC series is that they start by sounding
real for a couple sentences and the latest was better than most in
that regard.

---

From: Heasley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 10:10:03 -0700

Am Apr 6, 2013 um 8:52 schrieb Hector Santos <[email-masked]>:

> Hi Abdusalam,
> 
> You should consider all APRIL 1 published I-D as "SPAM" and the electronic mail follow ups generated in the IETF list as more wasted bandwidth, time and spam.   We have too much time in our hands, boredom for many, and even more wasted time if we spend time reading it - so in that regard I agree with your concerns.  Who has time for all this?  Its already a challenge to decipher most of the postings and wondering if one is serious or not. Ignore April 1 publications. :)
> 
It's called humor and fun; look it up.

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 19:12:25 +0200

The Mark Crispin RFC was not categorised as informational nor
experimental, so I was not against that old work that had few readers,
the problem is now new work and  millions of readers,

AB

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 18:13:56 +0100

> If the date is special then those RFCs MUST be *hysterical*.

'Like' :)

Tim

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 19:35:55 +0200

Hi Hector,

When I read the RFC on 1 April 2013 (my first time experience) I
noticed something is wrong (with the system or with doc-content), but
the document does not refer to any joke. As if you receive a message
from someone you know, but you realise that you don't know why he/she
sending it. If it is the IETF culture, is this culture defined in any
RFC or draft? However, don't mind culture/fun but mind its relation to
classifications. My comments in line,

On 4/6/13, Hector Santos <[email-masked]> wrote:
> bandwidth, time and spam.

the question is not that I SHOULD consider importance for the
published date, my question is : Does the IETF as an organisation
consider Content of its publications? is there something in IETF as
reference refering to such happy activity!!!, I am not sure. If yes
there is a reference then why the management forgot to categorise the
RFC as different from the serious work, do they just rely on the date
1 April.

> We have too much time in our hands, boredom

I never ignore any message/RFC I receive from IETF, IMO the IETF
SHOULD consider to categorise its messages sent or documents published
as any other publishers do for readers. However, I will follow your
advise, but just like to comment about any faulty RFC because it is in
the end a Request For Comment (RFC).

If the documents are calling/requesting a comment that was my
reply/comment as a reader,

<Just done my job and commented don't care if things change or not>

AB

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 09:38:23 -0800

On 4/6/13 9:35 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> but just like to comment about any faulty RFC because it is in

Clearly the real solution would be to rename the series.

Melinda

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 19:49:11 +0200

On 4/6/13, Warren Kumari <[email-masked]> wrote:
> -very, very, very lots.
>
> I understand you may have missed the fact that an RFC was an April 1st, and
> are grumpy now, but that's no reason to ruin things for the rest of us...
>

A message today may not be listened to but in future it may be listen
to. I just commented and replied to special publication RFC, does that
ruin things for you? do you/us own the policy. If IETF does not listen
to proposals on the list, then what is it about, do you mean folks
don't listen to only specific people's proposals? I think me or you
don't know how IETF works,

AB

---

From: Dave Cridland <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:22:30 +0100

The message below suggests you still think that every RFC is published by
the IETF.

It's not, and this one explicitly nuts that it is not an IETF RFC at the
top.

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 14:33:15 -0700

Indeed. The wikipedia entry is somewhat misleading though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_RFC

"Almost every April Fools' Day (1 April) since 1989, the Internet
Engineering Task Force has published one or more humorous Request for
Comments (RFC) documents,"

and then

"The IETF accepts submission of properly formatted April Fools' Day
RFCs from the general public, and considers them for publication in
the same year if received at least two weeks prior to April
1st.[2][3]"

Ulrich

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 13:39:37 -0800

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_RFC

Fix it or ignore it.  Wikipedia is neither authoritative nor
reliable.

Melinda

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 23:58:06 +0200

If we read each document in the world we know the answer; who owns the
copyright for these documents? so only owner can update it or to
change category name as per proposed,

AB

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2013 21:59:05 +0000

> the same year if received at least two weeks prior to April

Fixed

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2013 18:20:11 -0400

> It's called having a shared culture.  The IETF could even generate

Sure. I chose to ignore the April 1 I-Ds coming into a public newsgroup 
view of the IETF drafts [1].  There were a few, if just be the title of 
it, it seem like a joke, "draft-draft-draft" so you ignore it.  I can 
understand what Abdusalem was concern can occur - ignorance.

I don't have the time for it. I hope its not a diversity issue. :)

--
HLS

[1]news://news.winserver.com/ietf-drafts

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 01:35:57 -0400

> change category name as per proposed,

All of the (at least recent) RFCs have copyright notices in them.  In the case of RFC 6921, the copyright says:
   Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.
Margaret

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 11:59:30 +0000

I mostly share the sentiment that this is just humor, so what's the harm.

That said, I did at one point have to exercise my diplomatic skills when I got forwarded a customer (nameless here for evermore) question about whether support for RFC 3514 was on our roadmap.

While the people on this list generally "get" the joke, not all readers of RFCs are part of this group. The recent RFC 6919 is full of in-jokes (or perhaps, in-roast?) that many outside the IETF will not get. Anyways, it is an issue, but I think these are too much fun to do away with them.

Yoav

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Apr 2013 15:15:08 -0000

>That said, I did at one point have to exercise my diplomatic skills when I got forwarded a customer (nameless
>here for evermore) question about whether support for RFC 3514 was on our roadmap.

Think of it as free market intelligence on your customer base.

Of course we've only had April 1 RFCs for 35 years now.  Who knows
what horrible problem they may yet cause that we haven't noticed yet.

---

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:41:19 +0200

> That said, I did at one point have to exercise my diplomatic skills when I got forwarded a customer (nameless here for evermore) question about whether support for RFC 3514 was on our roadmap.

On that subject, April 1 RFCen in call for tender, I'd argue that they
serve a purpose. If an April 1 RFC is included in MUST or SHOULD --
a clued supplier will have staff that get the joke and reply with "only
on April 1" or similar. A box-ticking "let's hope they don't test this"
lying bastard will just check it and pull their pants down in public.
 
> While the people on this list generally "get" the joke, not all readers of RFCs are part of this group. The recent RFC 6919 is full of in-jokes (or perhaps, in-roast?) that many outside the IETF wi…

I do not want code or devices from people that don't "get" it in my
network. The April 1 series are useful documents.

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
So this is what it feels like to be potato salad

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 11:27:03 -0700

> network. The April 1 series are useful documents.
Well said!

i believe that april 1 RFCs server several useful purposes. They remind 
us to
not take ourselves too seriously. They remind us that the Internet community
has at times a counter-cultural tinge, questioning the common wisdom --
  when the prevailing wisdom was virtual circuits, we chose datagrams,
  for example. April 1 RFCs remind us that it is a mistake to completely 
legislate
the rules of organization of the IETF; we need room for permitting well-
grounded exceptions, thereby fostering growth and innovation
.
April 1 RFCs originated in the subtle wit of Jon Postel, and Jon believed
that April 1 RFCs should be outside the process -- they should  just appear
mysteriously every April 1, without last calls,  IESG actions, etc. (Similar
magic happens with the assignment of RFC numbers, by the way.
When questioned how it happened that the update to RFC 822 got
the number 2822, Jon would say "just a coincidence".)

I must confess to falling for 6919, but I think this simply reflected
  my dismay over today's  waste of time and effor perfecting
IETF process rules. At first glance, I thought that
6919 was simply the next step down into the pit of fruitless
Bickering that is the IETF mailing list these days.  More attention
to the very real problems of the Internet would seem to be in
order. I was much heartened to realize that 6919 was a joke,
and that publication of that April 1 RFC demonstrated some
community consensus that things are getting out of hand.

Bob Braden

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:31:54 +0000

> lying bastard will just check it and pull their pants down in public.

In this case I could tick that box without being a lying bastard. Just a sort-of deceitful one. It is possible to configure the firewall to drop packets with the evil bit set. I still went with explaining the April 1 RFC concept.

---

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 21:41:55 +0200

> In this case I could tick that box without being a lying bastard. Just a sort-of deceitful one. It is possible to configure the firewall to drop packets with the evil bit set. I still went with exp…

You pass. 

I seem to be able to locate several implementations. Shall we initiate
work to elevate 3514 from Informational to Proposed Standard?

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
I hope the ``Eurythmics'' practice birth control ...

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 13:32:08 -0700

That this thread is still being pursued made me double-check that it is in
fact not still April 1st.

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 16:58:52 -0400

This is one of those DPEP (Diversity Problem Entry Point) arising from 
globalization, April 1 HRC (Humor Recognition Culture) differences,  
IETF "stalization" and the growth of I-D submissions.   I suggest there 
is a direct correlation among these factors with the end goal efficacy 
of the submission.  Fortunately, there is a technical solution for this 
particular DPEP:

     if Date is April.1 then
          id.filename = "joke-"+id.filename.
     end if

A BCP can be written on when are the better days to submit an I-D. 
Clearly, the day with the lowest impact with a high ignorance factor 
would be April 1st submissions - its just bad marketing and bad 
judgement too, in my book, to submit anything intended to be real and 
serious on this day.

--
HLS

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 18:32:45 -0400

> fact not still April 1st.

It's always April 1st somewhere on the Net?

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 10:55:06 +1000

> While the people on this list generally "get" the joke, not all readers of RFCs are part of this group. The recent RFC 6919 is full of in-jokes (or perhaps, in-roast?) that many outside the IETF wi…

Indeed.

The April 1 RFCs do a great job reminding readers that the authority of an RFC, on its own, approaches zero. OTOH, it should also be a bit of a wake-up call to folks here that people so often confuse "RFC" with "authoritative statement of the IETF." 

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 09:21:29 +0200

Subject: Proposed solution  for DPEP (Diversity Problem Entry Point) - IETF April 1 jokes. Date: Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 04:58:52PM -0400 Quoting Hector Santos ([email-masked]):
> This is one of those DPEP (Diversity Problem Entry Point) arising
> from globalization, April 1 HRC (Humor Recognition Culture)
> differences,  IETF "stalization" and the growth of I-D submissions.
> I suggest there is a direct correlation among these factors with the
> end goal efficacy of the submission.  Fortunately, there is a
> technical solution for this particular DPEP:
> 
>     if Date is April.1 then
 
This solution has all the virtues of carpet-bombing. Mission accomplished
but cost and collateral damage are improportionally large.  To me, both
as humour /per se/ and as sorting help when selecting vendors (cf. my
message in this thread yesterday), the value almost totally lies in the
subtle play with form and the resulting ambigousness. In other words,
if we make it possible to determine by simple logic whether a document
is a pun or dead serious, it is useless.

I am aware that my position as stated above will be possible to interpret
as excluding. As parent of a child diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome,
I fully well know the potential consequences of failure to interpret
social hints.

I believe that 

* transient failure to get a joke not is cause for "safing" jokes. The
failure is part of the process.

* the speed with which  we "unfail" and start to appreciate this art
form is personal and differs according to our experience, background
and intellectual skills but that the initial failure is necessary. There
are subtler ways than policy and procedure to nudge people along when
they persist in failing. 

* the Internet idea of loosely cooperating networks REQUIRES autonomous
judgement from the people operating the system. Fostering a culture
where IETF texts are seen as close to faultless holy scripture does
nothing to encourage skepticism and personal responsibility.

* enough has been said in this that we already are risking the sweet
uncertainity. Accordingly, I'll try to not communicate further on this,
and definitely not propose any procedure work.

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
I am deeply CONCERNED and I want something GOOD for BREAKFAST!

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 00:30:30 -0800

Doesn't it strike you as odd that this discussion has moved towards some
sort of tacit/accepted acknowledgment of the role of joke RFCs as
insider/outsider cultural markers rather than just clever bits of writing
that are widely enjoyed?  I'm a little surprised to find myself developing
sympathy for tiresome humorless whiny people.  (Wait, no I'm not).

Anyway this strikes me as an unfortunate use of those documents.

Melinda

---

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:37:51 +0200

> Anyway this strikes me as an unfortunate use of those documents.

Breaking my own promise to shut up I'll just try to share my (unfinished)
thoughts as why this is so.

Perhaps it is a reaction to the "businessisation" of the IETF. Everything
needs to be justified and documented (which for the most part is
good. Until it is not). So in order to keep the pastime that these
documents are,  we jerk and try to assign them procedural meaning. When
we simply should say "They are a funny way to look at ourselves busy
trying to describe the world" -- but we've somehow lost faith in that. Oh
to be an arts major and just being able to place feelings in words and
have them graded as passing the exam. ;-)

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
... I'm IMAGINING a sensuous GIRAFFE, CAVORTING in the BACK ROOM
of a KOSHER DELI --

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:32:35 +0000

On Apr 8, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Although this is not entirely a good thing, it is worth noting that one purpose in creating borders is to lure people across them.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 05:38:15 -0800

Well, the timing of this strikes me as one of those "oh" moments, following
as quickly on the heels of the diversity discussion.  Not so much because
of language and culture issues (although those are unavoidable) but because
it strikes me as kind of unhealthy to use the April Fool RFCs as a tool to
partition the audience into "us" and "them".

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 13:50:44 +0000

On Apr 8, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Well, the timing of this strikes me as one of those "oh" moments, following as quickly on the heels of the diversity discussion.  Not so much because of language and culture issues (although those are unavoidable) but because it strikes me as kind of unhealthy to use the April Fool RFCs as a tool to partition the audience into "us" and "them".

Sure, that's clearly a problem to think about.   But my point was just that you can see it as something to divide us, or something to bring us together; what's important is that it in fact be used for the latter, and not the former.   But the essence of inclusiveness is not that we eliminate differences; if we did that, diversity wouldn't do us much good.   The essence of inclusiveness is being open and welcoming to diversity, and having, if not a sense of humor about differences, at least a tolerance for them.   Suppressing in-jokes is just as bad as excluding people who don't appreciate them.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 05:57:54 -0800

I am absolutely not suggesting changing anything other than the
unfortunate  attitude that the right response to someone missing the joke
is to read them out of the meeting/declare them anathema or unworthy or not
members of this community.  Your beef isn't with me, it's with Måns.

Melinda

---

From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:27:17 +0000

>If the date is special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*.

I thought they should be classified as "hysterical".

- Wes

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:38:43 +0000

On Apr 8, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Your beef isn't with me, it's with Måns.

I've got no beef with either of you—I'm a vegetarian!   :)

(I actually found what Måns had to say valuable, which illustrates one of the great problems of communication: everybody reads what you say differently!)

---

From: "Pat Thaler" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 16:25:00 +0000

RFC 1149 was the first humorous RFC I read and probably the first RFC I read. It was definitely accessible for me as a Layer 1 and 2 IETF outsider. Humorous RFCs can be a nice introduction to the structure of RFCs.

Pat

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Melinda Shore
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:31 AM
To: Måns Nilsson
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Proposed solution for DPEP (Diversity Problem Entry Point) - IETF April 1 jokes.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that this discussion has moved towards some sort of tacit/accepted acknowledgment of the role of joke RFCs as insider/outsider cultural markers rather than just clever bits of writing that are widely enjoyed?  I'm a little surprised to find myself developing sympathy for tiresome humorless whiny people.  (Wait, no I'm not).

Melinda

---

From: Lucy Lynch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 10:35:15 -0700 (PDT)

> I thought they should be classified as "hysterical".

there is an echo (echo) ((echo) ) in here (here) ((here))

---

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:19:53 +0200

> members of this community.  Your beef isn't with me, it's with Måns.

To clarify: 

I was thinking of vendors, not people .  The vendor that does not invest
in its staff enough to expose them to the IETF culture may not supply
my network with code and boxes.

People who initially fail to appreciate the jokes for what they are
should be enlightened in the most gentle way possible.

At no time have I proposed or held the belief that public humiliation
is in any way acceptable.

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
We have DIFFERENT amounts of HAIR --

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 15:34:37 -0400

> there is an echo (echo) ((echo) ) in here (here) ((here))

IETF humor has lots of hysteresis.

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2013 21:11:38 +0000

On Apr 8, 2013, at 10:19 PM, Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I was thinking of vendors, not people .  

Hey! That's hurtful.    ;-)

> The vendor that does not invest

The IETF is an SDO. Standards are important in the creation of boxes and the code that runs on them, but there's a lot more that goes into making good code or a good box. I don't believe that appreciating the in-jokes of the IETF, or an understanding of the fine points of rough consensus are necessary for making good boxes. The culture of the IETF may or may not be crucial for the functioning of the IETF, but I don't think you need to be in on it to implement some RFC.

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:38:58 -0700

>> Comments (RFC) documents,"

Actually, the IETF has very little to do with April  1 RFCs, except to
enjoy them. The RFC Editor is entirely responsible. The RFC Editor
accepts submissions, consults with a few experienced
members of the Internet technical community, chooses which ones are
sufficiently well written and clever, and publishes them. There may be one
or more rounds of editorial suggestions and author updates before
publication.

Bob Braden

PS to Heather: Well done!

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 08:01:37 +0100

There's a lot of hysteresis... because calling it funny is often a stretch.

Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Scott Brim [[email-masked]]
Sent: 08 April 2013 20:34
To: Lucy Lynch
Cc: ietf; Abdussalam Baryun
Subject: Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April    the first

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 17:41:40 -0400

The theory that all April 1 dates RFCs are simply jokes and nothing
else is also easily refuted. Consider RFC 3092. It is an April 1st RFC
produced through that process and has certainly produced some
chuckles. Yet I've lost count of the number of emails I've gotten over
the years from non-English speakers thanking me for the RFC and saying
it was helpful to them...

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlFib/gACgkQ02/pMZDM1cVp0wCePKf4nLxF85ZBOACv1itL0G8s
> pDwAoKPsjMy06MZRr2eMHiOegi5vCs/g
> =UNMB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>