Re: [Sip] I-D Action:draft-ietf-sip-rph-new-namespaces-02.txt

At 12:20 PM 2/28/2008, Dean Willis wrote:
>James M. Polk wrote:
> >
> >>    Abstract:
> >>
> >>    This document creates additional Session Initiation Protocol
> >>    Resource-Priority namespaces, and places these namespaces in the
> >>    IANA register.
> >>
> >> As an editorial matter, can the abstract be made less vague?  Such as
> >> mentioning that it creates a set of namespaces for the use of the US
> >> Defense Information Systems Agency...
> >
> > well, at least I didn't overstate things...  ;-)
> >
> > I can change this if you want me to
>
>Since I personally only read the abstract of new drafts and extrapolate
>all further content (including any errors) by intuitive deduction, I'm
>sure that a more detailed abstract would be helpful. ;-)

no problem... the next version will be done and submitted the week of 
the meeting

>Seriously, a well-written abstract is a big help for people who haven't
>been reading along with the development. Many students I've talked to
>start with the abstract, and then use that to decide how the RFC fits
>into the mental framework they're building as they try to come to grips
>with the documentation-kraken that SIP has become.
>
>We should be careful to make our abstracts as useful for this sort of
>thing as we can. That means that the abstract needs to tell us what the
>draft is about well enough to fit it into a framework, but not tell us
>much about the implementation detail. Admittedly, it is a fine balancing
>act -- but I'm afraid the abstract for the draft in question hasn't even
>stepped up to the high-wire, much less maintained its balance.
>
>--
>dean

_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list  https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use sip-implementors@cs.columbia.edu for questions on current sip
Use sipping@ietf.org for new developments on the application of sip