There's a lot of hysteresis... because calling it funny is often a stretch.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scott Brim
[s...@internet2.edu]
Sent: 08 April 2013 20:34
To: Lucy Lynch
If the date is special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*.
I thought they should be classified as hysterical.
- Wes
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
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 humor has lots
On 4/6/2013 2:59 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
On Apr 7, 2013, at 12:33 AM, Ulrich Herberg ulr...@herberg.name 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
All April 1 RFCs should not be categorised historical but
Category: CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET EYES ONLY NEED TO KNOW SIPRNET COBRA VATICAN
FNORD KNITTING PATTERN
Distribution: Unlimited.
We should also start a December 25 series. With something on SOCKS.
Lloyd Wood
http://sat-net.com/L.Wood/
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 melinda.sh...@gmail.comwrote:
On 4/6/13 1:33 PM, Ulrich Herberg wrote:
Indeed. The wikipedia entry is somewhat misleading though:
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
From: Andrew Sullivan a...@anvilwalrusden.com
It's always April 1st somewhere on the Net?
Especially if you (or your packets, to be precise) can travel backwards in
time
Noel
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
Sent from my iPad
On 6 Apr 2013, at 14:04, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com 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
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
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 even more
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 too much time
Am Apr 6, 2013 um 8:52 schrieb Hector Santos hsan...@isdg.net:
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,
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 d...@cridland.net wrote:
These aren't published by the IETF, but by the RFC
On 6 Apr 2013, at 16:39, Stewart Bryant (stbryant) stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
On 6 Apr 2013, at 14:04, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
If the date is
special then thoes RFCs SHOULD be *historical*.
Surely the correct requirement is :
If the date is special
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.
Right.. they are mind expanding drugs. Essential for keeping us sane.
/Elwyn
Sent from my ASUS Pad
Stewart Bryant (stbryant) stbry...@cisco.com wrote:
Sent from my iPad
On 6 Apr 2013, at 14:04, Abdussalam Baryun abdussalambar...@gmail.com
wrote:
If the date is
special then thoes RFCs
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 abdussalambar...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Hector,
When I read the RFC on 1 April 2013 (my first
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
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
On Apr 7, 2013, at 12:33 AM, Ulrich Herberg ulr...@herberg.name 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
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
