Am Apr 6, 2013 um 8:52 schrieb Hector Santos <hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net>:
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.
--
HLS
On 4/6/2013 9:03 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
<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