Re: [IETF] Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated Apr

Subject: RE: [IETF] Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or 
dated?April the first Date: Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 11:59:30AM +0000 Quoting Yoav 
Nir (ynir(_at_)checkpoint(_dot_)com):
> 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.
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 will not get. Anyways, it is 
> an issue, but I think these are too much fun to do away with them.
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

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature