--On Thursday, February 25, 2010 11:25:53 AM +0000 Elwyn Davies
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi, Russ,
Thanks for your response.
There are two items where I would differ with you. Part of the point of
gen-art is to ensure that the RFCs are adequately comprehensible to an
audience that is not deep into the subject area but do not have a general
knowledge of Internet protcols. Part of the point of this is to allow
people to quickly determine that documents are *really* not relevant and
to allow implementers to know whether a piece of functionality is
relevant without having to be totally cognizant of the details. One
important part of this is acronym expansion and jargoRe: Gen-art review
of draft-allbery-afs-srv-records-04n busting with
definitions.
Hence I believe it is worth adding a sentence along the lines of:
AFS is a system that shares an ancestry with the Andrew Filing System but
is known by the unexpandable pseudo-acronym AFS for copyright reasons.
I think you're missing the point, perhaps. That which used to be known as
"Andrew File System" has instead been known as "AFS" for around 15 years.
It was renamed a long time ago, while still available only as a commercial
product, by the maker of that product. I don't think the abstract of every
document discussing AFS needs to explain the history of the name, any more
than you need to explain to me how you got your name every time we have a
conversation. The name is what it is, and the fact that its canonical
spelling consists of three capital letters doesn't change that.
BTW it is highly likely that you would have the same discussion with the
RFC Editor.
No; RFC-Editor will say "acronyms need to be expanded"; Russ and/or I will
say "not an acronym", and that will be that.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
