Subject: humour area reviewers and IESG members

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 09:52:27 -0400

http://dilbert.com/strip/2018-06-26

"I reviewed your draft and deleted stuf that was WRONG"
"These pages are BLANK"
"You asked me to be thorough"

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 09:24:19 -0500

Funny indeed. You understand better after seeing the pictures.
A picture is worth a thousand words.

Behcet

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 21:03:30 +0200

If the corrected draft can still get through IESG review and get
an RFC number, i do not see the problem.

;-)

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 01:39:02 +0000 (UTC)

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 Wood [email-masked] http://about.me/lloydwood 

On Wednesday, 27 June 2018, 05:04:32 GMT+10, Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]> wrote: 

;-)

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 01:32:52 -0400

--On Thursday, June 28, 2018 01:39 +0000 Lloyd Wood
<eclipticplane2002=[email-masked]> 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.
> 
> 

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 18:33:52 +1200

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.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 08:08:21 -0400

--On Thursday, June 28, 2018 18:33 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> 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.
> 
> 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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:31:51 +1200

On 29/06/2018 00:08, John C Klensin wrote:
...
> (I note that the "avian carrier" documents have

I've seen implementation reports for two of them, one
as recently as earlier this month. Which underlines
another unwritten rule: a good April 1st RFC is definitely
implementable. I think Lloyd's idea meets that criterion.

   Brian

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 15:58:01 -0500

> sometimes been mistaken for Internet Standards too).

On the "usually" point, someone does have to deal with errata reports on
them.  For the modern ones (postdating the concept of streams), I gather
that such reports go to the ISE.  For what it's worth (probably not much).

-Ben