Re: [apps-discuss] Requirement for "obsoletes" in Abstracts

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

On 2/4/2012 10:12 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>the IESG does not treat this as a hard-and-fast rule, but, in fact,
> more as a "strong recommendation".  ADs normally don't use DISCUSS to comment on
> this, but non-blocking COMMENT.  And the PROTO writeup can call it out and say
> that it's intended this way.


I just posted a note to the RFC Editor suggesting that all this points to some 
benefit in reviewing and revising the RFC Style guide.

In the current case:

1. I happen to believe that RFCs usually should not contain information that 
ceases to be interesting; that is, that has a short lifetime of usefulness.  For 
some odd reason, I think of an RFC as having a twenty-year or more span of 
utility.  From that perspective, what it obsoletes isn't useful in the Abstract, 
especially since Abstracts are supposed to be information-dense.

2. Authors should not have to guess about what is an absolute rule and what isn't.

3. The rationale for the rules should be provided.


d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net