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

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

On 2/5/2012 4:17 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
> There are two problems with this theory, however. The first is that separable
> Abstracts make all sorts of sense when the full document is not readily
> accessible (only in print journal, behind a paywall, blah blah blah.). But
> that's not the case for RFCs. It might have made sense even for RFCs when data
> transfer was expensive, but these days pulling out the Abstract is more trouble
> than it's worth - why not just send the whole thing? The only remaining
> use-case I can think would be some sort of index, and any such index done
> competently will include much more extensive forward and backwards pointers of
> its own. (And it is axiomatic that the far more important forward pointers,
> that is, "this document is obsoleted/updated by RFC N", cannot possibly appear
> in the Abstract.)


There's a big difference between sending out a notice that includes 
one-paragraph summary (the Abstract) versus automatically including the entire 
document of 20-100 pages.

The exercise of producing a one-paragraph summary requires some discipline and 
understanding of the work that was done.  I see this as a meaningful value-add, 
over the full detail of that work which is the entire document.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net