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 dts(_at_)senie(_dot_)com
Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com