Re: [IETF] Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: [IETF] Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the 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 acc

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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*. >>

Re: [IETF] Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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 >

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: draft-sheffer-running-code-03 published

> Yes, we could do what you suggest, but as you found, it requires a kind of > meta-note to the RFC Editor that starts to get messy and confusing. I don't know: I don't think the meta-note is a problem. Perhaps you might pass it by Sandy and see if she thinks it's reasonable and understandable.

Re: Less Corporate Diversity

On 03/23/2013 02:27 AM, Bob Hinden wrote: To raise this discussion up a bit, I can think two other related reasons why there may be less corporate diversity in the IETF. The first is that it's possible to build applications and businesses that take advantage of the Internet without having to c

RE: draft-sheffer-running-code-03 published

Hi, [snipping out some useful points] We had considered what you suggest below, and indeed I typed it up in a recent email to Yaron before deleting it again. Yes, we could do what you suggest, but as you found, it requires a kind of meta-note to the RFC Editor that starts to get messy and confus

Re: draft-sheffer-running-code-03 published

> we have just published a new revision of this draft, defining a new, > optional Implementation Status section to be included in Internet Drafts: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheffer-running-code-03 It does look mostly ready, though I think the primary addition in -03, the recommended boile

Re: [IETF] Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Comments for Humorous RFCs or uncategorised RFCs or dated April the first

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

Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication

On Apr 6, 2013, at 3:21 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > That's terrible for the IETF. It completely nullifies the NomCom > random selection process; all the suggestions in RFC 3797 seem > to be blown away by this. This seems like exactly the sort of problem that Jari's cross-area draft is intend

Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets-03

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv

Re: RFC 6921 on Design Considerations for Faster-Than-Light (FTL) Communication

On 05/04/2013 18:12, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote: > Or use the FTL to predict the company stock price so that you get rich > without implementing anything. That's terrible for the IETF. It completely nullifies the NomCom random selection process; all the suggestions in RFC 3797 seem to be blown awa

Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv4-nets-03

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-opsec-ipv6-implications-on-ipv