At 12:20 PM 2/28/2008, Dean Willis wrote: >James M. Polk wrote: > > > >> Abstract: > >> > >> This document creates additional Session Initiation Protocol > >> Resource-Priority namespaces, and places these namespaces in the > >> IANA register. > >> > >> As an editorial matter, can the abstract be made less vague? Such as > >> mentioning that it creates a set of namespaces for the use of the US > >> Defense Information Systems Agency... > > > > well, at least I didn't overstate things... ;-) > > > > I can change this if you want me to > >Since I personally only read the abstract of new drafts and extrapolate >all further content (including any errors) by intuitive deduction, I'm >sure that a more detailed abstract would be helpful. ;-)
no problem... the next version will be done and submitted the week of the meeting >Seriously, a well-written abstract is a big help for people who haven't >been reading along with the development. Many students I've talked to >start with the abstract, and then use that to decide how the RFC fits >into the mental framework they're building as they try to come to grips >with the documentation-kraken that SIP has become. > >We should be careful to make our abstracts as useful for this sort of >thing as we can. That means that the abstract needs to tell us what the >draft is about well enough to fit it into a framework, but not tell us >much about the implementation detail. Admittedly, it is a fine balancing >act -- but I'm afraid the abstract for the draft in question hasn't even >stepped up to the high-wire, much less maintained its balance. > >-- >dean _______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
