Hi Jari and Francis, I understand that some abbreviations familiar to me are not necessarily so to others. In the latest document (v12), MN and LMA are spelled out as "mobile node" and "local mobility anchor" as many as possible. Also, the itemized descriptions for Figures 2 and 3 in Section 4.1 use more unabbreviated words.
Apologize for this delay, but the latest version was submitted earlier as v12. Hope that the readability has improved even a bit... Regards, -- Hidetoshi Jari Arkko wrote: > Francis, > >> => BTW I am familiar with most of these abbrevs (I worked a lot in Mobile >> IPv6 area) but it is just a matter of taste: the abuse of abbrevs is >> IMHO a bad style for a written text. And this includes the "use English >> words the first time, introduce abbrevs and use them in place of plain >> English after". > > I agree, by the way. We can, of course, WR (Write) TXT (Text) with ABs > (Abbreviations) but it just produces HTRT (Hard To Read Text). Its so > much easier to just say "the mobile node" or "the home agent" than use > one of the abbreviations. > > (And I'm not demanding this conversion be done for the current document. > But I find many of the documents that I see a little overusing the > abbreviations.) > > Jari > > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
