Lynch
Cc: ietf; Abdussalam Baryun
Subject: Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April
the first
On 04/08/13 13:35, Lucy Lynch allegedly wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
>
>>
>>> If the date is special then thoes RFCs SHOUL
On 4/6/2013 2:59 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Apr 7, 2013, at 12:33 AM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:
Indeed. The wikipedia entry is somewhat misleading though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_RFC
"Almost every April Fools' Day (1 April) since 1989, the Internet
Engineering Task Force has p
On 04/08/13 13:35, Lucy Lynch allegedly wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
>
>>
>>> If the date is special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*.
>>
>> I thought they should be classified as "hysterical".
>
> there is an echo (echo) ((echo) ) in here (here) ((here))
IETF h
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
If the date is special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*.
I thought they should be classified as "hysterical".
there is an echo (echo) ((echo) ) in here (here) ((here))
- Wes
>If the date is special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*.
I thought they should be classified as "hysterical".
- Wes
On 07/04/2013, at 9:59 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> 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 RF
> From: Andrew Sullivan
> It's always April 1st somewhere on the Net?
Especially if you (or your packets, to be precise) can travel backwards in
time
Noel
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 01:32:08PM -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> That this thread is still being pursued made me double-check that it is in
> fact not still April 1st.
It's always April 1st somewhere on the Net?
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
a...@anvilwalrusden.com
That this thread is still being pursued made me double-check that it is in
fact not still April 1st.
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 4/6/13 1:33 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:
> > Indeed. The wikipedia entry is somewhat misleading though:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apr
Subject: Re: [IETF] Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or
dated?April the first Date: Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 07:31:54PM + Quoting Yoav
Nir (y...@checkpoint.com):
> In this case I could tick that box without being a lying bastard. Just a
> sort-of deceitful one. It is po
On Apr 7, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Måns Nilsson 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 + Quoting
> Yoav Nir (y...@checkpoint.com):
>> I mostly share the sentiment that this is
On 4/7/2013 8:41 AM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
I do not want code or devices from people that don't "get" it in my
network. The April 1 series are useful documents.
Well said!
i believe that april 1 RFCs server several useful purposes. They remind
us to
not take ourselves too seriously. They remi
Subject: RE: [IETF] Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or
dated?April the first Date: Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 11:59:30AM + Quoting Yoav
Nir (y...@checkpoint.com):
> I mostly share the sentiment that this is just humor, so what's the harm.
>
> That said, I did at one
>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.
Think of it as free market intelligence on your customer base.
Of course we've only had April 1 RF
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.
While the people on this lis
/
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Elwyn Davies
[elw...@dial.pipex.com]
Sent: 06 April 2013 21:26
To: Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
Cc: ietf; Abdussalam Baryun
Subject: Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated
On Apr 6, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Abdussalam Baryun
wrote:
> If we read each document in the world we know the answer; who owns the
> copyright for these documents? so only owner can update it or to
> change category name as per proposed,
>
All of the (at least recent) RFCs have copyright notices i
On 4/6/2013 11:57 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On 04/06/13 11:52, Hector Santos allegedly wrote:
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 h
On Apr 7, 2013, at 12:33 AM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:
> Indeed. The wikipedia entry is somewhat misleading though:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_RFC
>
> "Almost every April Fools' Day (1 April) since 1989, the Internet
> Engineering Task Force has published one or more humorous
If we read each document in the world we know the answer; who owns the
copyright for these documents? so only owner can update it or to
change category name as per proposed,
AB
On 4/6/13, Ulrich Herberg wrote:
> Indeed. The wikipedia entry is somewhat misleading though:
> http://en.wikipedia.org
On 4/6/13 1:33 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:
> Indeed. The wikipedia entry is somewhat misleading though:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_RFC
Fix it or ignore it. Wikipedia is neither authoritative nor
reliable.
Melinda
Indeed. The wikipedia entry is somewhat misleading though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_RFC
"Almost every April Fools' Day (1 April) since 1989, the Internet
Engineering Task Force has published one or more humorous Request for
Comments (RFC) documents,"
and then
"The IETF acc
The message below suggests you still think that every RFC is published by
the IETF.
It's not, and this one explicitly nuts that it is not an IETF RFC at the
top.
On 6 Apr 2013 18:35, "Abdussalam Baryun" wrote:
> Hi Hector,
>
> When I read the RFC on 1 April 2013 (my first time experience) I
> no
Right.. they are mind expanding drugs. Essential for keeping us sane.
/Elwyn
Sent from my ASUS Pad
"Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" wrote:
>
>
>Sent from my iPad
>
>On 6 Apr 2013, at 14:04, "Abdussalam Baryun"
>wrote:
>
>>
>> If the date is
>> special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*.
>>
On 4/6/13, Warren Kumari wrote:
> -very, very, very lots.
>
> I understand you may have missed the fact that an RFC was an April 1st, and
> are grumpy now, but that's no reason to ruin things for the rest of us...
>
> Try hacking protocol, not policy -- then folk may listen more to your
> proposal
On 4/6/13 9:35 AM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
> but just like to comment about any faulty RFC because it is in
> the end a Request For Comment (RFC).
Clearly the real solution would be to rename the series.
Melinda
Hi Hector,
When I read the RFC on 1 April 2013 (my first time experience) I
noticed something is wrong (with the system or with doc-content), but
the document does not refer to any joke. As if you receive a message
from someone you know, but you realise that you don't know why he/she
sending it. I
On 6 Apr 2013, at 16:39, "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" wrote:
>
> On 6 Apr 2013, at 14:04, "Abdussalam Baryun"
> wrote:
>
>>
>> If the date is
>> special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*.
>>
>
> Surely the correct requirement is :
>
> If the date is special then those RFCs MUST be *hys
The Mark Crispin RFC was not categorised as informational nor
experimental, so I was not against that old work that had few readers,
the problem is now new work and millions of readers,
AB
On 4/6/13, Dave Cridland wrote:
> These aren't published by the IETF, but by the RFC editor directly. As
>
Am Apr 6, 2013 um 8:52 schrieb Hector Santos :
> 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
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013, Scott Brim wrote:
> On 04/06/13 11:52, Hector Santos allegedly wrote:
> > 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 to
On 04/06/13 11:52, Hector Santos allegedly wrote:
> 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 eve
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
th
Sent from my iPad
On 6 Apr 2013, at 14:04, "Abdussalam Baryun" wrote:
>
> If the date is
> special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*.
>
Surely the correct requirement is :
If the date is special then those RFCs MUST be *hysterical*.
- Stewart
On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Abdussalam Baryun
wrote:
>
>
> 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
These aren't published by the IETF, but by the RFC editor directly. As
such, the IETF has little control.
Even if this were not so, I would be very much against discontinuing or
specially marking such documents. I appreciate Mark Crispin was always
proud that his randomly lose telnet extension was
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 beha
37 matches
Mail list logo
