Re: Proposed IESG Statement on the use of the “Updates” header

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for weighing in, Bob. I have a request for clarification.

On 9/11/18 1:31 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> I worry about the
>
>     "abstract should contain enough detail to help readers decide if they need to read the rest of the RFC”
>
> This may result in a long Abstract depending on the nature of the “update” and defeat the purpose of the abstract if it gets too long.


Based on other people's comments, you're not alone in such a concern, 
and I'd like help understanding why. My conception of document abstracts 
in general is that they serve the singular purpose of letting people 
know whether they should read the rest of the document. This makes the 
text you quote almost tautological.

Clearly, you (and others) have a different notion of the purpose of the 
abstract section, and that understanding is driving these concerns. I 
don't think we can reach a reasonable consensus unless we surface what 
those differences in understanding are.

Can you concisely describe what purpose you believe an abstract serves?

/a