At 06:20 PM 9/9/01, Bob Braden wrote:
>Jiwoong,
>
>In my view, any acronynm that would not be instantly understood by 98%
>of the IETF should be defined the first time it appears in the
>document. This seems like just plain common sense and courtesy to the
>reader.
>
>The RFC Editor has started to enforce this usage in the Abstract
>section of an RFC. It might not be a bad idea to enforce it
>everywhere.
Guess I'm not the only one who finds it annoying to read a draft title
which is chock full of acronyms, and then an abstract which says the same
thing, with the same acronyms... If I can't determine what the author is
talking about from the announcement that gets sent to ietf-announce,
there's a good chance I won't read the draft and make comments.
I think this should go beyond RFCs, and perhaps be added to the Guidelines
for Authors of Drafts.
Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com
