[dhcwg] Re: Several reminders

Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com> Mon, 27 August 2001 20:59 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00159; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:59:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA04110; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:56:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin []) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA04086 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:56:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail-out2.apple.com (mail-out2.apple.com []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA00049 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 16:54:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com []) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA19019 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scv3.apple.com (scv3.apple.com) by apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id <T55a0b6da1d118164e14ec@apple.com>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:55:58 -0700
Received: from [] (vpn-gh-1056.apple.com []) by scv3.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA08040; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:55:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200108272055.NAA08040@scv3.apple.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 13:55:56 -0700
x-sender: cheshire@mail.apple.com
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
To: "Ted Lemon" <mellon@nominum.com>, "DHCP discussion list" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject: [dhcwg] Re: Several reminders
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

>Actually, this is not true, and is a dangerous idea.   If I define the
>format of something that's authoritatively defined elsewhere in my own
>draft, and I make a mistake in transcribing or paraphrasing the
>authoritative source, this is likely to create interoperability
>problems when someone doesn't refer to the source.   So I _must_ refer
>to the authoritative source, and _must not_ paraphrase it.


I'm not understanding your point.

I didn't say that you shouldn't have references. What I said was that 
writing a number in little square brackets doesn't exempt the writer from 
the normal rules of English grammar. Footnotes and endnotes are not the 
English language equivalent of "#include". If the text is necessary for 
the basic understanding of the sentence, then it should be in the 
sentence. Footnotes and endnotes can provide additional clarification, 
but the sentence should still be grammatically correct if you ignore them.

This seems to be a modern trend in writing, particularly in documents 
like RFCs which not academic research papers, but are written somewhat in 
that style. If you look at research publications from fifty years ago, no 
one would ever have thought of using a sprinking of footnote and endnote 
references as a substitute for a grammatically correct sentence.

Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer
 * Chairman, IETF ZEROCONF
 * www.stuartcheshire.org

dhcwg mailing list