Re: [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 2007-02-13 20:16, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
> 
> 
> 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

Yeah. I'm going no-objection on this one (but in general,
for more substantive documents, I agree with Gonzalo's points).

      Brian

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