Re: Next step on web phishing draft(draft-hartman-webauth-phishing-05.txt)

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

>> There has been a discussion recently on LTRU as to whether a Terms and
>> Definitions section should be introduced within RFCs - much like those
>> within ISO Standards.
>>     
>
> And my response to this suggestion is the same as it was for the "IANA
> considerations" or "Internationalization considerations" section suggestions:
> By all means have a "terms and definitions" section or whatever in the document
> if there's a need for one, but don't make having one mandatory in all
> documents.
>
> We already have more than enough useless (from a technical content
> perspective) boilerplate in our documents. 
+1

Actually I don't have so much of a problem with having such sections in
drafts at review time, but I hate to see them clutter up published
RFCs.    There are a lot of times when these sections aren't applicable,
and having them in the final document just interferes with readability. 

I also think that a Terms and Definitions section might encourage
document authors to make up new terms when they're not necessary, which
would also interfere with readability.  (geeks love to create new language.)