On May 1, 2014:10:45 AM, at 10:45 AM, Christer Holmberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Nobo
>
>>> Section 1 (Introduction):
>>> ---------------------------------
>>>
>>> Q_1:
>>>
>>>
>>> s/"two MIB modules"/"two Management Information Base (MIB) modules"
>>
>> Authors had an offline discussion about this one, and concluded that the
>> term is sufficiently well known and modification is not required.
>
> I am ok with that.
>
> But, as I said earlier, shouldn't you then remove "Management Information
> Base" from the Abstract section, and only use "MIB" there too?
No. The abstracts should not contain acronyms that are undefined, as
they are often extracted and used for other things. This is the same thinking
around why we expand acronyms inside of MIB descriptions, and do not allow
references, but instead require explicit RFC/document names.
--Tom
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
