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

["Paul Hoffman" <[e-mail]>]

On 12 Sep 2018, at 14:18, Adam Roach wrote:

> I still don't follow. If the abstract does not contain enough 
> information to let someone know whether they want to read the rest of 
> the RFC, then what purpose *does* it serve?

To tell the reader if they want to read the Introduction. For example, 
it should indicate whether this is a description of the new Foo 
protocol, or an update to the Foo protocol, or just the definition of an 
extension. If it is defining a new protocol, what general realm is that 
protocol in?

> I note that many (non-IETF) protocol specifications are published 
> without an abstract at all. If ours doesn't serve any purpose, then 
> perhaps it's time we discussed whether RFCs need them at all [1].
> ____
> [1] To be clear, I think this would be a Really Bad Idea, but it's the 
> only logical conclusion I can draw from push-back on a proposal that 
> our abstracts do the one thing that abstracts are intended to do.

Yes, this is a bad idea, but there are needs of the reader that short 
abstracts fill just fine.

--Paul Hoffman