On Monday, February 12, 2007 10:26:13 AM -0800 "C. M. Heard"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The title of the draft could be more explicit. Now it mentions RFC
4181. It could also indicate that it is an update to the
Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB Documents.
I disagree with this comment -- I believe that doing as it suggests would
make the title unnecessarily long. Note that the Abstract already spells
out the full title of RFC 4181.
A document title should be meaningful enough that by reading a citation or
an rfc-index entry, you can tell what the document is about, at least at a
high level. Normally, I'd say that means _not_ naming an updated document
only by its RFC number, since that effectively forms a citation within a
citation that can be more work to track down than it should be.
In this case, I think the essential part is there -- it's an update to
recognize the IETF Trust. The last document of this type that I reviewed
was RFC4748, and its title is constructed in exactly the same way. I
didn't have a problem with it then, and I don't now, either.
Acronyms (e.g., MIB) should be expanded on their first use.
I have to agree fully with Mike here - "MIB" is a well-known acronym; in
fact, I'd argue that it's so well-known that more people know what it means
than know what it stands for.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
