On Sun, 09 Sep 2001 17:39:47 MDT, Vernon Schryver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I disagree. Becaause there are too many drafts to read, every good
> filter is valuable. If the author doesn't know enough to use acronyms
> in the title properly, then chances are the draft itself won't be
> readable for additional reasons. Unreadable drafts and RFCs are less
> likely to be widely implemented. Even when they are widely implemented,
> life is too short.
Unfortunately, I know of at least one misguided soul who tried to implement RFC1097,
but couldn't figure out how to encode the option byte. I'm still waiting
for somebody to tell me that RFC1098 was an even more subtle joke. ;)
The problem starts when something DOES get implemented - at that point,
those of us with clues need to be able to do the following:
a) Figure out what the chapter-and-verse actually says.
b) Cite it to the offender.
The last thing we need is to be encouraging unclear writing. I've still
got a quarter century or more till retirement - if I'm going to be citing
chapter and verse for another 25 years, I'd like it to be *understandable*
chapter and verse, thank you. ;)
Valdis Kletnieks
Operating Systems Analyst
Virginia Tech
