iff is common language in most technical/academic documentation I believe. Whilst I am sympathetic to wanting to ensure that RFCs are as easy to parse as possible for as wide an audience as possible I think that we have to have some level at which we assume the reader can refer to external references should they not be familiar with the terminology used. The RFC Editor team is good at keeping authors honest around this bar.
James - I would encourage you to review the documents that are in last call in the working group for these kinds of clarifications if you have time please. Making these edits before we cut an RFC is preferable. Thanks! r. On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 12:30 AM James Bensley <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8 June 2018 at 09:58, Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote: > > James, > > > > I believe "iff" was intended as written. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if > > > > Adrian > > Hi Adrian, > > That seems like a handy acronym and I'm not against it's use. I'm just > questioning how commonly used it is in networking circles and thus, > whether this document should have a glossary or not? After a quick > scan of "recent" RFCs it's not in common use (only one other RFC apart > from this one); > > $ for i in `seq 5000 8500`; do wget > "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc$i.txt";; done > > $ grep " iff " *.txt | awk '{print $1}' | uniq > rfc7242.txt: > rfc7855.txt: > > Cheers, > James. >
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
