Hi,
yes, having a few guidelines on common issues would be useful.
Cheers,
Gonzalo
C. M. Heard wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2007-02-13 20:16, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Monday, February 12, 2007 10:26:13 AM -0800 "C. M. Heard"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Gonzalo Camarillo 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.
As noted above, the title that drew the review complaint was constructed in
exactly the same way as that of draft-ietf-ipr-ietf-trust-update. There
was no complaint about the title in the gen-art review of that document;
see
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg01222.html
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg01223.html
and the title was left as-is in the published RFC (4748).
> > 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
Yeah. I'm going no-objection on this one (but in general,
for more substantive documents, I agree with Gonzalo's points).
Brian
There was no complaint about the use of 'MIB' without expansion in the
gen-art review of draft-harrington-8021-mib-transition -- see
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg00734.html --
and it was not expanded in the published RFC (4663) either.
It seems to me that an author should be able to expect that a practice
would be considered OK if it had been allowed in the gen-art review of
a previous Internet-Draft and had also been allowed by the RFC Editor in
the corresponding published RFC.
//cmh
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
