[rfc-i] ID-Nits obsoles/updates vs mention in Abstract
barryleiba at computer.org (Barry Leiba) Fri, 15 January 2016 15:48 UTC
From: "barryleiba at computer.org"
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 10:48:36 -0500
Subject: [rfc-i] ID-Nits obsoles/updates vs mention in Abstract
In-Reply-To: <5698E9D4.8060203@gmx.de>
References: <5698E9D4.8060203@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <CALaySJJpH1LiOES41pnKsMBp6ss3dW20dJp1XaGpZTdwQAm7JA@mail.gmail.com>
We've had that discussion within the IESG, and have mixed results on it -- so, yes, it's enforced somewhat randomly. But only somewhat, because the bottom line is that if we (for some collective value of "we") think that the information is useful to have in the abstract, we ask for it. My personal opinion is that it's not usually important in the abstract, but there are times where it makes sense (in an RFC that makes obsolete a very well know earlier RFC, for instance, where the earlier RFC's number is so well known that saying it explicitly is good). For example, RFC 2822 says this in its abstract: This standard supersedes the one specified in Request For Comments (RFC) 822, "Standard for the Format of ARPA Internet Text Messages", updating it to reflect current practice and incorporating incremental changes that were specified in other RFCs. Somewhat random or not, I'd prefer not to have any firm rule on the matter, but to leave it to judgment. Barry On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote: > Hi there, > > triggered by a discussion with the production center about RFC7749-to-be, I > did some statistics about whether RFCs that obsolete/update something > mention that in thee Abstract (this is something ID-Nits asks for). > > (The statistics were done on AUTH48 versions of RFCs, so it doesn't cover > all RFCs because not all of them had XML versions to begin with, and some > are malformed). > > I'm attaching the raw data and the XSLT to produce it. > > Looking at the results: > > 393 RFCs had obsoletes/updates fields. > > 281 of these mentioned at least one of the obsoleted/updates RFCs in the > Abstract. > > 130 of these did not mention at least one of these in the Abstract. > > (due to the way I count, the two numbers do not exactly add up, because > there can be a mixture within the same document) > > Looking for a trend...: > > RFC5*: 92 total, 45 without, 53 with mention > RFC6*: 135 total, 48 without, 95 with mention > RFC7*: 153 total, 31 without, 126 with mention > > So there is a trend (towards following ID-Nits' advice), but it's obviously > not enforced. > > I have no strong opinion about whether it *should* be enforced, although my > first reaction was "unnecessary duplication of boilerplate". > > However, what's not good is if this policy ends up being enforced somewhat > randomly (and it appears that's what's happening right now). > > Best regards, Julian
- [rfc-i] ID-Nits obsoles/updates vs mention in Abs… Barry Leiba
- [rfc-i] ID-Nits obsoles/updates vs mention in Abs… Julian Reschke