On Thu 2025-05-22 10:50:25 -0700, Alanna Paloma wrote:
> ) We have a couple of questions regarding the index.
>
> a. We note that there is a lot of index linking throughout the document. For
> it to be most useful, it is ideal that the index points to where the term is
> defined, and perhaps other key occurrences, not at each instance where the
> term is mentioned. Therefore, may we clean up the index to only link to
> definitions and key occurrences? For example, for “Header Confidentiality
> Policy” and “HCP”, we suggest only including links to Section 1.7 and Section
> 3, Paragraph 2, as these are where the terms are defined and expanded on.
>
> b. Within instances of “No Header Confidentiality Policy”, only “Header
> Confidentiality Policy” is linked. Was the intention to include an index
> entry for “No Header Confidentiality Policy” (if yes, we suggest including
> only one link to Section 3.2.3 (“No Header Confidentiality Policy”)), or may
> we remove the links from these occurrences?
Looking at the document overall, i'm not sure that the index serves much
of a useful purpose. Maybe we just drop the index?
This was the first RFC that i've generated with an index in it, and the
indexing was done using kramdown-rfc's indexing features. It was,
perhaps, a failed experiment.
I agree that the point in (b) above is pretty confusing. The terms in
the index are:
- all the pseudocode titles, which are already collected in table 5
- RFC8551HP, which is defined in the introduction
- Header Confidentiality Policy, and HCP, which are central to the
document, and declared in the Terminology section.
So i'd be fine with simply removing the index from the document
entirely.
What do y'all think?
--dkg
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
