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