[Ltru] "666 Marked meta-spam" (was Route 66)

[r&d afrac <rd at afrac.org>]

At 06:25 15/10/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Misha Wolf <Misha dot Wolf at reuters dot com> wrote:
>
> > Will we ask for a number ending in 66?  If so, for which of the RFCs?
>
> I understand that the RFC Editor is solely responsible for issuing RFC
> numbers, and can pick any number imaginable.  I don't suppose it would
> hurt to ask, though, keeping the 1766 -> 3066 legacy in mind.

Dear all,
I cannot object "Route 66" is not a perfect name concept for the 
American Globalization document which, at perfect time, sides the 
IESG with the USG's positions to the eyes of the world.

Genuine arrogance or total inconsciousness, such a thread does not 
help pretending the IETF is multicultural/multinational. Why not to 
add St John the Evangelist among the authors and to wait for the RFC 
4666 number? It would be perfect mnemonic for the world to think of 
contents, protocols, Google searches leaking cultural/racial readers' 
characteristics as "4666 Marked".
jfc  


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru