[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 Monday, February 12, 2007 10:26:13 AM -0800 "C. M. Heard" 
<heard@pobox.com> wrote:

>> 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.

A document title should be meaningful enough that by reading a citation or 
an rfc-index entry, you can tell what the document is about, at least at a 
high level.  Normally, I'd say that means _not_ naming an updated document 
only by its RFC number, since that effectively forms a citation within a 
citation that can be more work to track down than it should be.

In this case, I think the essential part is there -- it's an update to 
recognize the IETF Trust.  The last document of this type that I reviewed 
was RFC4748, and its title is constructed in exactly the same way.  I 
didn't have a problem with it then, and I don't now, either.

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

I have to agree fully with Mike here - "MIB" is a well-known acronym; in 
fact, I'd argue that it's so well-known that more people know what it means 
than know what it stands for.

-- Jeff

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