Re: [rfc-i] NO policy in Style Guide, please

Martin,

On 2/21/24 5:09 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> Hello Jean, others,
> 
> [copying RSWG]
> 
> On 2024-02-21 23:37, Jean Mahoney wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The RPC has added guidance on the use of links in documents. Please 
>> see the Web Portion of the Style Guide at
>> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#links>.
> 
> Thanks for the pointer. I have comments on a few items. I'll use a 
> separate mail for each of them.
> 
> The text you point to says:
> "There is no hard limit on the number and frequency of links in 
> documents, and a limit should not be defined by policy."
> 
> I definitely agree with the substance of this sentence. However, there's 
> a very big problem here. There are continuing occasional discussions in 
> the RSWG about what is and isn't, or should and shouldn't, be policy 
> (for which the RSWG is responsible) and what not.
> 
> My personal take on this is that "we will know it when we see it", and 
> "whatever the RSWG thinks is policy is policy", so my position is that 
> abstract discussions about the border of policy are mostly a waste of time.
> 
> However, it is very clear that it's the RSWG that defines policy 
> (whatever that is), which includes saying (if necessary) what is not 
> policy. A statement in the Style Guide saying that something "should not 
> be defined by policy" is therefore completely out of place.

[JM] Yes, we can update the sentence by deleting the mention of policy:

    "There is no hard limit on the number and frequency of links in
    documents."

> 
> If there should ever be an attempt in the RSWG to define any kind of 
> policy on the number of links in an RFC, I see absolutely no problem 
> with somebody from the RPC contributing to that discussion and arguing 
> that such a policy would be a bad idea. And I definitely would agree 
> with that.
> 
> But putting anything like this in a style guide isn't appropriate. If it 
> wasn't intended that way, please explain it and fix it so that it's not 
> misunderstood. If there are other places in the Style Guide that contain 
> similar wording, please fix them, too.

[JM] I've opened an issue for draft-rpc-rfc7322bis.

Best regards,
Jean

> 
> Regards,   Martin.
> 
>> Best regards,
>> Jean
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rfc-interest mailing list
>> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
>> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest