[Gen-art] Re: Last Call: draft-heard-rfc4181-update (RFC 4181 Update to Recognize the IETF Trust) to BCP [WAS: Gen-art review of draft-heard-rfc4181-update-00.txt]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.

I will do so, and in that spirit I'm posting my response to the IETF 
list with the subject line changed.  My apologies for the delay in 
replying.

> Draft: draft-heard-rfc4181-update-00.txt
> Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com>
> Review Date: 23 January 2006
> IETF LC Date: 16 January 2006
> 
>
> Summary:
>
> This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
> be fixed before publication.
>
>
> Comments:
>
> The title of the draft could be more explicit. Now it mentions RFC 
> 4181. It could also indicate that it is an update to the 
> Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB Documents.

I disagree with this comment -- I believe that doing as it suggests 
would make the title unnecessarily long.  Note that the Abstract 
already spells out the full title of RFC 4181.

> Acronyms (e.g., MIB) should be expanded on their first use.

The only places where the acronym "MIB" is used are in the Abstract 
and the References, where the title of RFC 4181 is quoted.  The 
acronym is not expanded in that title, and it would be inappropriate 
to do so in a citation, which is supposed to quote the exact title 
of the document being cited.

Also, I believe that "MIB" qualifies as an appreviation that is so 
firmly extablished in IETF usage that its use is very unlikely to 
cause uncertainty or ambiguity and so is exempt from the usual 
acronym expansion requirement.  Granted that it is not explicitly 
mentioned in http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.abbrevs, 
but several recent RFCs using the acronym "MIB" have appeared 
without it being expanded anywhere.  RFC 4181 and RFC 4663 are 
examples.

The only other acronym I see is IETF, and that one is explicitly 
mentioned in http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.abbrevs.

> The draft should be divided into pages, none of which should 
> exceed 58 lines.

Unless I'm required to make another revision for other reasons, I'd 
like to let the RFC Editor take care of that (which they will do 
anyway) ... my apologies if the lack of pagination has caused any 
readability problems.

Mike

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art