Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > * This is the first place I noticed that in some places throughout the > document (and there are many instances), a reference to another RFC looks like > the usual "[RFCxxxx]", but in others it's the more verbose "RFCxxxx, <title> > ". We should pick one or the other and use it throughout, and I suggest that > the former is far more common.
In my review [1] I did ask authors to change all references to "[RFCxxxx]" to "Title [RFCxxx]" because that is easier for people who do not have all 9000 RFC numbers to title mapping in their head (I only know that mapping for about 50 RFC numbers or so mostly in IPsec area). Having the title in the text makes it much easier for the reader to know what that RFC is about, without requiring him to google up the RFC numbers all the time (yes, you could also jump to the references section to check, but then you need find a way to get back where you jumped off). Adding titles is bit annoying for the author, but will make it much easier for readers, and I do hope we are optimizing the readability instead of writability of the RFCs. On the other hand I did not get any replies to my review, and most of the stuff there are not acted upon, so perhaps my review did not properly reach authors. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/dupMPaE2SWqDnIL_JkKQqp5Vu20/ -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
