Re: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-forwarding

[<[e-mail]>]

Curtis,

my mistake. I hadn't realised that RFCs and internet-drafts were written
solely for an American audience, and that the preferences of US readers takes
priority over the ease of reading of the other 6.5 billion+ people on the
planet.


Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________________
From: Curtis Villamizar [[e-mail]]
Sent: 28 January 2014 00:09
To: Wood L  Dr (Electronic Eng)
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls] AD review of draft-ietf-mpls-forwarding

In message <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] writes:

> >> > I think Curtis may have heard this before :-)
> >> > The "preferred" (by the RFC editor) expansion of ECMP is
> >> > "Equal-Cost Multipath"
> >>
> >> The form without the hyphen is more common, even among recent
> >> documents.  I prefer to keep it without the hyphen.
>
> >> A discussion for a rainy day with the RFC Editor.
> >> Leave as is.
>
> Basic English grammar. Hyphenate related adjectives.
> http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/hyphens_in_compound_adjectives.htm
>
> Lloyd Wood
> http://about.me/lloydwood


Hi Lloyd,

Monster.com lists this as a "should".  They don't seem to be using RFC
2119 keywords since its lower case.  :-)

  In the UK, your readers will expect you to use hyphens in compound
  adjectives.

  Americans are more lenient. The US ruling is: Use a hyphen if it
  eliminates ambiguity or helps your reader, else don't bother. If
  you're unsure, use hyphens. You won't be marked down for using
  hyphens.

Good thing we use US English in IETF and don't have to stick with
those pesky British rules.  They don't even know how to pronounce
router over there.  :-)

There is no ambiguity caused by leaving out the hyphen.  My reasoning
is that The form without the hyphen is more common, even among recent
documents - and it looks better to a US English reader.  We have given
the matter due consideration and are going against the monster.com
"should".

Curtis