On Apr 7, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Måns Nilsson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 ([email protected]): >> 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. In this case I could tick that box without being a lying bastard. Just a sort-of deceitful one. It is possible to configure the firewall to drop packets with the evil bit set. I still went with explaining the April 1 RFC concept.
