Hi, >>>> 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.
My understanding is that well known terms don't need to be expanded in the Abstract either. But, I can of course be wrong. Anyway, this is just a very minor nit, so no need to spend time arguing about it. I am happy that you changed the security consideration sentence I was commenting on, and as far as I am concerned the document is ready for publication :) Regards, Christer _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
