ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: draft-heard-rfc4181-update (RFC 4181 Update to Recognize the IETF Trust) to BCP [WAS: Gen-art review of draft-heard-rfc4181-update-00.txt]

2007-02-14 18:42:31
Hi Mike,

as the review says, they are just nits. If you disagree with them, feel free to ignore them (as long as your AD is also OK with that, of course).

Cheers,

Gonzalo


C. M. Heard wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

I will do so, and in that spirit I'm posting my response to the IETF list with the subject line changed. My apologies for the delay in replying.

Draft: draft-heard-rfc4181-update-00.txt
Reviewer: Gonzalo Camarillo <Gonzalo(_dot_)Camarillo(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com>
Review Date: 23 January 2006
IETF LC Date: 16 January 2006


Summary:

This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should
be fixed before publication.


Comments:

The title of the draft could be more explicit. Now it mentions RFC 4181. It could also indicate that it is an update to the Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of MIB Documents.

I disagree with this comment -- I believe that doing as it suggests would make the title unnecessarily long. Note that the Abstract already spells out the full title of RFC 4181.

Acronyms (e.g., MIB) should be expanded on their first use.

The only places where the acronym "MIB" is used are in the Abstract and the References, where the title of RFC 4181 is quoted. The acronym is not expanded in that title, and it would be inappropriate to do so in a citation, which is supposed to quote the exact title of the document being cited.

Also, I believe that "MIB" qualifies as an appreviation that is so firmly extablished in IETF usage that its use is very unlikely to cause uncertainty or ambiguity and so is exempt from the usual acronym expansion requirement. Granted that it is not explicitly mentioned in http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.abbrevs, but several recent RFCs using the acronym "MIB" have appeared without it being expanded anywhere. RFC 4181 and RFC 4663 are examples.

The only other acronym I see is IETF, and that one is explicitly mentioned in http://www.rfc-editor.org/policy.html#policy.abbrevs.

The draft should be divided into pages, none of which should exceed 58 lines.

Unless I'm required to make another revision for other reasons, I'd like to let the RFC Editor take care of that (which they will do anyway) ... my apologies if the lack of pagination has caused any readability problems.

Mike


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf