Hi Adrian,
This is up to you reading the abbrev.expansion.txt I noticed that "Some
abbreviations are so well known that expansion is probably
unnecessary. The RFC Editor exercises editorial judgment about whether a
particular use of one of the "well-known" abbreviations requires
expansion."
So it will be up to the RFC editor.
At least for me as a reader who is not familiar with all the abbreviations
in the draft I found that even if they are expanded on the first usage it
will be easier if all abbreviations are in one place in the document, but
this may be a separate discussion on general draft structure.
As for the abbrev.expansion.txt, it does not help since there is no
reference to it in draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-dsmap and as mentioned
some abbreviations have multiple expansions even in the RFC editor list
(e.g. FEC).
Roni
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 1:16 PM
To: 'Roni Even'; draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-
dsmap(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 'IETF-Discussion list'
Subject: RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-mpls-lsp-ping-enhanced-
dsmap-09
Thanks Roni,
Nits/editorial comments:
1. Need to expand LDP when first mentioned.
LDP is a recognised acronym at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt and does
not need
to be expanded.
Cheers,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf