[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]

Mike's assessment seems reasonable to me. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gonzalo Camarillo [mailto:Gonzalo.Camarillo@ericsson.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:36 AM
> To: C. M. Heard
> Cc: IETF; Romascanu, Dan (Dan); GEN-ART
> Subject: 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]
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> as the review says, they are just nits. If you disagree with 
> them, feel free to ignore them (as long as your AD is also OK 
> with that, of course).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Gonzalo
> 
> 
> C. M. Heard wrote:
> > 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