There has been a discussion recently on LTRU as to whether a Terms and
Definitions section should be introduced within RFCs - much like those
within ISO Standards.
And my response to this suggestion is the same as it was for the "IANA
considerations" or "Internationalization considerations" section suggestions:
By all means have a "terms and definitions" section or whatever in the
document
if there's a need for one, but don't make having one mandatory in all
documents.
We already have more than enough useless (from a technical content
perspective) boilerplate in our documents.
+1
Actually I don't have so much of a problem with having such sections in
drafts at review time, but I hate to see them clutter up published
RFCs. There are a lot of times when these sections aren't applicable,
and having them in the final document just interferes with readability.
I also think that a Terms and Definitions section might encourage
document authors to make up new terms when they're not necessary, which
would also interfere with readability. (geeks love to create new language.)
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf