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
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 RFCs
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 point have to
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
On Apr 7, 2013, at 6:41 PM, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org 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
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 possible to
On 07/04/2013, at 9:59 PM, Yoav Nir y...@checkpoint.com 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
On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
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
On 4/6/13, Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net 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
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 ulr...@herberg.name wrote:
Indeed. The wikipedia entry is somewhat misleading though:
On Apr 6, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
