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
d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Måns Nilsson
<mansaxel(_at_)besserwisser(_dot_)org> wrote:
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 (hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net):
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
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!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlFib/gACgkQ02/pMZDM1cVp0wCePKf4nLxF85ZBOACv1itL0G8s
pDwAoKPsjMy06MZRr2eMHiOegi5vCs/g
=UNMB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----