> I find myself on the fence with proposals like these. They have good intentions but they do not solve an issue at its core.

It's clearly a joke à la RFC 3514.

▲

orthogonal_cube 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I couldn’t tell. I struggle with such subtleties.

I probably should’ve checked ‘454545’ in the ascii table. Seeing how it translates to ‘---‘ could’ve hinted towards that, but the clever use probably would’ve been applauded instead without thinking it was a joke.

Ah well. Egg on my face I suppose.

▲

wpollock 2 hours ago | parent [-]

RFCs have four digit numbers. This will likely change within a month or so; RFC 9945 was recently assigned so it won't be long. I wonder what RFC9999 and RFC10000 will be?

	▲	atlbeer an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		RFC9999 obviously should be to propose RFCs having 5 digits
	▲	ssl-3 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm probably neither creative- nor connected-enough to do it myself, but somebody should see to it that either RFC9999 or RFC10000 is funny as hell and lands on April 1st.