Re: RFC abbreviations list

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

The ADs do not own the RFC Editor list of abbreviations which do not 
need expansion.
As a first approximation, as long as an abbreviation is considered new, 
it is extremely unlikely to be added by the RSE (or equivalent person). 
The point of that list is to list things that are so well known even 
outside the narrow field of use that it is reasonable to expect people 
to know the abbreviation.

Personally, I wouldn't care if that list were reduced to zero.  Out goal 
is to write clear documents.  expanding abbreviations / acornyms on 
first use is a good idea.  I do understand that we do not bother with 
things like IP, TCP, HTTP.  So having a list is useful.  But if people 
complain about how hard it is to get anything on the list, I will push 
to remove it entirely.

Yours,
Joel

On 7/25/2020 6:15 PM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> If we can put the most important new standards into RFC abbreviation list
> even after i tell an AD twice, then i don't think we can deal with
> new technical terms in the organization any better.
> 
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 11:34:43PM +0200, Carsten Bormann wrote:
>> On 2020-07-25, at 23:04, Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> For exmple i have to observe a real bad execution on evolving the
>>> RFC abbreviations list, and every time i pointed to problems,
>>> they where not fixed, and ADs did not bother to pick up the problem.
>>
>> True.  One of these ???medium importance??? issues???  Hard to get attention for them.
>>
>> I think we need a calendar to attend to them once a year or so.
>>
>> Grüße, Carsten
>