Hi Wes, I agree with your sentiment here. However, given the word count limits, and the fact that it's going to be hard to tell what usage is first prior to us having a full document, I suspect that an abbreviations section is highly appropriate and the best approach.
Would folks care to contribute expansions, please? Tony On 1/26/10 1:56 PM, "George, Wes E [NTK]" <wesley.e.geo...@sprint.com> wrote: > In reading this draft as someone who has not been consistently on-list until > very recently (December), and understanding that it is a work in progress, I > have a comment for improved readability for the next pass revision: > > I would strongly recommend exploding any acronyms used in the summaries and > critiques if they have not been defined previously in the document or section. > It's currently quite inconsistent - I'm sure that this has a lot to do with > the number of contributors, plus the ordering of the approaches within the > draft. However, I get the impression that many authors, in an attempt to > maximize the available word count, were a bit liberal in terms of what are > "well-known" acronyms, but they may not all be so well-known to those not > heavily involved in RRG or already familiar with the particular approach being > discussed. [I|E|T]TR comes immediately to mind as something that is widely > used but not defined until late in the draft if at all. ITR, not defined until > section 8. ETR, not defined until section 13. TTR, not defined at all. PMTUD > is defined in section 4, but DFZ is not defined when used just a few sentences > prior. While not all of these examples are necessarily uncommon acronyms, I > think it makes my point that this needs to be reviewed document-wide. It's > probably easiest for the original contributor to make this review and provide > updates as needed, but I'll leave that to the editors' discretion :-) > > If this is an issue of word-count, this probably shouldn't count towards the > limit, since it's largely for readability, but I do think that it needs to be > done if the intent is to have these summaries be truly standalone - In other > words, I will read the original draft if I need more detailed info about how > an approach does something, but I shouldn't have to do it in order to get a > basic sense of how it works because of acronym overload. > > Alternatively, a glossary section could be added, but I think that given the > size of this draft, inline definitions would be easier for the reader than > having to scroll to a different section each time they encounter an unknown > acronym. > > Thanks, > Wes George > > -----Original Message----- > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list rrg@irtf.org http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
