Talk:April Fools' Day Request for Comments

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the April_1st_RFC article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 10:34, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  None of them look interesting. RossPatterson 06:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/April_1st_RFC|Link suggestions]] 

message: Where there any joke RFCs posted for 2006? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.150.149.226 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 April 2006
:: Apparently not.  RossPatterson 06:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006? 

message: Anything for 2007? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.211.195.204 (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. RossPatterson 02:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...RFC 4824 being entirely realistic and serious, obviously. ;) JTN 11:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not my fault if the RFC editor missed the deadline!  :-) RossPatterson 12:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007? 

message: A layman such as myself could read this page from start to finish and still not know what this is all about.  Could somebody perhaps provide a more descriptive opening paragraph? Cheers. Swindon LS12 (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is This? 

message: No one for 2008 yet? --83.177.111.37 (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm isn't the 2008 joke one http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5242.txt ? or are there two? --83.177.111.37 (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008? 

message: Seems all of the RFC's that are linked to are returning 404's, with the amount listed here, and elsewhere, would some regex wizard be able to relink them correctly?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.21.200 (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked a few of them at random, and they're working fine. RossPatterson (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken RFC Links? 

message: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/04/01/156206/IETF-Drops-RFC-For-Cosmetic-Carbon-Copy discusses an IETF-NG Informational-Draft about an Internet enhancement, Cosmetic Carbon Copy. If it's appropriate, it'd be nice to add that here. (I'm a co-author on that IETF-NG document.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.110.121 (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 IETF-NG submission 

message: The contents of this article should be put in the Request for Comments article. Also List of RFCs, if not already done. April Fools' Day Request for Comments should redirect to Request for Comments. As per Wikipedia:Notability.
137.124.161.31 (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't warrant an article. Should be merged => [[Request_for_Comments]] and [[List_of_RFCs]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on April Fools' Day Request for Comments. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327234338/http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt to https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified