On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> is there any reason for the authirs *not* to make things easier for your >> readers by saying: " >> This document describes how EVPN [RFC7432] can be ..."? >> > > That clearly is a good edit suggestion for all alone occurrences of > [RFC7432] in the draft. > > > That sounds like a fine idea - perhaps the authors should add something >> like "Readers of this document are expected to be familiar with RFC7209 and >> RFC7432." >> Mainly I don't understand why we wouldn't want to make it easier for >> someone new to the technology... >> > > > I think in number of IETF drafts extending existing specifications there > is an implicit assumption that the reader is familiar with the base spec > or specs around it related to new work. > I'm sure this is true, but as someone who reads a lot of specs, this one is unusually reader-unfriendly to someone who is being asked to pick it up and review it. It's not unreasonable to expect that: 1. Acronyms be expanded on first use. 2. Terms of art come with citations to where they are defined. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ BESS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
